This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-65
entitled 'Information Technology: Additional OMB and Agency Actions
Are Needed to Achieve Portfolio Savings' which was released on
November 6, 2013.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
November 2013:
Information Technology:
Additional OMB and Agency Actions Are Needed to Achieve Portfolio
Savings:
GAO-14-65:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-14-65, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Federal agencies plan to spend at least $82 billion on IT in fiscal
year 2014, and GAO has previously reported on challenges in
identifying and reducing duplicative IT investments. In 2012, OMB
launched its PortfolioStat initiative—-a process where agencies gather
information on their IT investments and develop plans for
consolidation and increased use of shared-service delivery models.GAO
was asked to review the implementation of PortfolioStat. GAO’s
objectives were to (1) determine whether agencies completed key
required PortfolioStat actions, (2) evaluate selected agencies’ plans
for making portfolio improvements and achieving associated cost
savings, and (3) evaluate OMB’s plans to improve the PortfolioStat
process. To do this, GAO analyzed plans, status reports, and other
documentation from agencies and interviewed agency and OMB officials.
GAO also interviewed officials and reviewed documentation from five
agencies selected based on their IT expenditures and management
structures.
What GAO Found:
The 26 major federal agencies that were required to participate in the
PortfolioStat initiative fully addressed four of seven key
requirements established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
However, only 1 of the 26 agencies addressed all the requirements. For
example, agencies did not develop action plans that addressed all
elements, such as criteria for identifying wasteful, low-value or
duplicative information technology (IT) investments, or migrate two
commodity IT areas—such as enterprise IT systems and IT infrastructure—
to a shared service by the end of 2012. (See table.)
Table: Number of 26 Agencies Meeting PortfolioStat Requirements:
Designate a lead official: 26;
Complete portfolio survey: 26;
Develop commodity IT baseline: 14;
Hold PortfolioStat session: 26;
Complete action plan: 4;
Migrate two services: 12;
Submit lessons learned: 26.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of table]
In addition, some of these agencies had weaknesses in selected areas:
* 6 agencies reported limitations in their chief information officer’s
(CIO) authority to review and approve the entire portfolio;
* 5 agencies did not include all their investments in their enterprise
architecture (i.e., an organizational blueprint), limiting their
ability to identify investments to be consolidated or eliminated; and
* 12 agencies reported challenges in ensuring the completeness of
their commodity IT baseline data or did not identify a process to
ensure its completeness.
Further, OMB’s estimate of about 100 consolidation opportunities and a
potential $2.5 billion in savings from the PortfolioStat initiative is
understated because, among other things, it did not include estimates
from the Departments of Defense and Justice. GAO’s analysis, which
includes these estimates, shows that, collectively, the 26 agencies
are reporting about 200 opportunities and at least $5.8 billion in
potential savings through fiscal year 2015.
Five selected agencies—-the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, the
Interior, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs—-identified 52
consolidation initiatives, along with other IT management
improvements, and estimated at least $3.7 billion in potential cost
savings through fiscal year 2015. However, four agencies did not
always provide sufficient support for all of their estimates, and they
varied in their use of processes—such as an enterprise architecture
and a method for assessing the value of investments—recommended by OMB
to identify consolidation opportunities. More consistently using these
tools may reveal further opportunities for consolidation, and better
support for estimated savings may increase the chances that they will
be achieved.
OMB‘s fiscal year 2013 PortfolioStat guidance identifies a number of
planned improvements but does not fully address certain weaknesses in
the implementation of the initiative, such as limitations in CIOs’
authority, weaknesses in agencies’ commodity IT baselines,
accountability for migrating selected commodity IT areas, or the
information on agencies’ progress that OMB intends to make public.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending, among other things, that OMB require agencies to
fully disclose limitations in CIOs’ ability to exercise their
authority and that 24 agencies take steps to improve their
PortfolioStat implementation. OMB agreed with some of the
recommendations and disagreed with others; and responses from the 21
agencies commenting on the report varied. GAO continues to believe
that the majority of the recommendations are valid, but has removed
two, and modified one, as discussed in the report.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-65]. For more
information, contact David A.Powner at (202) 512-9286 or
pownerd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Agencies Addressed PortfolioStat Requirements, but Baselines and
Consolidation Plans Were Not All Complete:
Selected Departments' Plans Identified Billions in Potential Cost
Savings Using Various Processes, but Support for These Savings Is
Uneven:
OMB's Plans Outline PortfolioStat Improvements but Do Not Address All
Issues with Agencies' Efforts:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Agencies' Commodity IT Migration Efforts:
Appendix III: Agencies' Portfolio Initiatives:
Appendix IV: Recommendations to Departments and Agencies:
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Appendix IX: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
Appendix X: Comments from the General Services Administration:
Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix XII: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
Appendix XIII: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
Appendix XIV: Comments from the National Archives and Records
Administration:
Appendix XV: Comments from the National Science Foundation:
Appendix XVI: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:
Appendix XVII: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
Appendix XIII: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix XIX: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:
Appendix XX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Agencies' Implementation of PortfolioStat Requirements:
Table 2: Extent to Which Agency Action Plans Addressed Required
Elements:
Table 3: Agency-Reported PortfolioStat Initiatives and Estimated Cost
Savings and Avoidance:
Figure:
Figure 1: Number of Business and Enterprise Commodity IT Systems
Reported by Agencies:
Abbreviations:
Agriculture: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
CIO: Chief Information Officer:
COO: Chief Operating Officer:
Defense: Department of Defense:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
EA: enterprise architecture:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
GSA: General Services Administration:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Interior: Department of the Interior:
IT: information technology:
NARA: National Archives and Records Administration:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NRC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
NSF: National Science Foundation:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
SBA: Small Business Administration:
SSA: Social Security Administration:
Treasury: Department of the Treasury:
USACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
VA: Department of Veterans Affairs:
[End of section]
GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
November 6, 2013:
The Honorable Thomas R. Carper:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D.
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Claire McCaskill:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
United States Senate:
Federal agencies expect to spend about $82 billion in fiscal year 2014
to meet their increasing demand for information technology (IT). Given
the proliferation of duplicative, wasteful, low-value investments that
both we and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have highlighted
over the years, it is important that federal agencies avoid investing
in these types of investments whenever possible. Avoiding such
investments will be particularly important to ensure the most
efficient use of resources as agencies continue to be faced with
budget restrictions.
Over the past few years, we have issued a series of reports that have
identified federal programs or functional areas where potentially
unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation exists, the actions
needed to address such conditions, and the potential financial and
other benefits of doing so.[Footnote 1] In March 2012, OMB launched an
initiative, referred to as PortfolioStat, which requires agencies to
conduct annual reviews of their IT investments and make decisions on
eliminating duplication, among other things. According to OMB,
PortfolioStat has the potential to save the government $2.5 billion
over the next 3 years. Given the potential for achieving such savings
and improving IT investment management, you asked us to review the
implementation of PortfolioStat. Our specific objectives were to (1)
determine the status of efforts to implement key required
PortfolioStat actions, (2) evaluate selected agencies' plans for
making portfolio improvements and achieving associated cost savings,
and (3) evaluate OMB's plans to improve the PortfolioStat process.
To address our first objective, we obtained documentation from the 26
agencies[Footnote 2] that were required to comply with OMB's memo for
implementing the PortfolioStat initiative and compared it to the
memo's requirements and supporting guidance. To address our second
objective, we selected 5 agencies based on criteria including total IT
expenditures for fiscal year 2012, investment management maturity
level, and IT and Chief Information Officer organizational structures.
These agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, the
Interior, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. We analyzed these
agencies' documentation and interviewed relevant officials to identify
their plans for reducing potentially duplicative, low-value, and
wasteful commodity IT investments and determine the extent to which
they were based on the use of an enterprise architecture (EA)[Footnote
3] and an IT valuation model,[Footnote 4] as recommended by OMB, and
the extent to which support for estimated cost savings was documented.
To address our third objective, we reviewed OMB's guidance for the
2013 PortfolioStat and interviewed OMB's PortfolioStat Lead regarding
plans for improving the PortfolioStat process. In addition, we
analyzed the information obtained from our sources and the results of
our analyses for our first two objectives to determine whether OMB's
plans for improving PortfolioStat addressed the issues we identified.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 to November 2013
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I
contains additional details on our objectives, scope, and methodology.
Background:
Information technology should enable government to better serve the
American people. However, OMB stated in 2010 that the federal
government had achieved little of the productivity improvements that
private industry had realized from IT, despite spending more than $600
billion on IT over the past decade.[Footnote 5] Too often, federal IT
projects run over budget, behind schedule, or fail to deliver promised
functionality.[Footnote 6]
Both OMB and federal agencies have key roles and responsibilities for
overseeing IT investment management. OMB is responsible for working
with agencies to ensure investments are appropriately planned and
justified.[Footnote 7] Federal agencies are responsible for managing
their IT investment portfolio, including the risks from their major
information system initiatives, in order to maximize the value of
these investments to the agency. Additionally, each year, OMB and
federal agencies work together to determine how much the government
plans to spend on IT projects and how these funds are to be allocated.
For fiscal year 2014, federal agencies plan to spend about $82 billion.
GAO Has Previously Reported on Opportunities to Reduce Duplication and
Achieve Cost Savings in Critical IT-Related Areas:
We have previously reported on the challenges associated with
agencies' efforts to identify duplicative IT investments. For example,
in September 2011 we reported that there were hundreds of investments
providing similar functions across the federal government, including
1,536 information and technology management investments, 781 supply
chain management investments, and 661 human resource management
investments.[Footnote 8] Further, we found that OMB guidance to
agencies on how to report their IT investments did not ensure complete
reporting or facilitate the identification of duplicative investments.
Specifically, agencies differed on what investments they included as
an IT investment, and OMB's guidance requires each investment to be
mapped to a single functional category. As a result, agencies' annual
IT investments were likely greater that the $79 billion reported in
fiscal year 2011 and OMB's ability to identify duplicative investments
was limited. Further, we found that several agencies did not routinely
assess operational systems to determine if they were duplicative. We
recommended, among other things, that OMB clarify its guidance to help
agencies better identify and categorize their IT investments and
require agencies to report the steps they take to ensure that their IT
investments are not duplicative. OMB agreed with these recommendations.
More recently, we reported on efforts at the Departments of Defense,
Energy, and Homeland Security to identify duplicative IT investments.
[Footnote 9] More specifically, we noted that although Defense,
Energy, and Homeland Security use various investment review processes
to identify duplicative investments, 37 of our sample of 810
investments were potentially duplicative at Defense and Energy. These
investments accounted for about $1.2 billion in spending for fiscal
years 2007 through 2012. We also noted that investments were, in
certain cases, misclassified by function, further complicating
agencies' ability to identify and eliminate duplicative investments.
We recommended that Defense and Energy utilize transparency
mechanisms, such as the IT Dashboard[Footnote 10] to report on the
results of their efforts to identify and eliminate potentially
duplicative investments. The agencies generally agreed with this
recommendation.
We have also reported on the value of portfolio management in helping
to identify duplication and overlap and opportunities to leverage
shared services. For example, we have reported extensively on various
agencies' IT investment management capabilities by using GAO's IT
Investment Management Framework,[Footnote 11] in which stage 3
identifies best practices for portfolio management, including (1)
creating a portfolio which involves, among other things, grouping
investments and proposals into predefined logical categories so they
can be compared to one another within and across the portfolio
categories, and the best overall portfolio can then be selected for
funding, and (2) evaluating the portfolio by monitoring and
controlling it to ensure it provides the maximum benefits at a desired
cost and an acceptable level of risk.
OMB Established PortfolioStat to Help Agencies Reduce Duplication and
Achieve Cost Savings:
Recognizing the proliferation of duplicative and low-priority IT
investments within the federal government and the need to drive
efficiency, OMB launched the PortfolioStat initiative in March 2012,
which requires 26 agencies to conduct an annual agency-wide IT
portfolio review to, among other things, reduce commodity IT spending
and demonstrate how their IT investments align with the agency's
mission and business functions.[Footnote 12] Toward this end, OMB
defined 13 types of commodity IT investments in three broad categories:
(1) Enterprise IT systems, which include e-mail; identity and access
management; IT security; web hosting, infrastructure, and content; and
collaboration tools.
(2) IT infrastructure, which includes desktop systems, mainframes and
servers, mobile devices, and telecommunications.
(3) Business systems, which include financial management, grants-
related federal financial assistance, grants-related transfer to state
and local governments, and human resources management systems.
[Footnote 13]
PortfolioStat is designed to assist agencies in assessing the current
maturity of their IT investment management process, making decisions
on eliminating duplicative investments, and moving to shared solutions
(such as cloud computing[Footnote 14]) in order to maximize the return
on IT investments across the portfolio. It is also intended to assist
agencies in meeting the targets and requirements under other OMB
initiatives aimed at eliminating waste and duplication and promoting
shared services, such as the Federal Data Center Consolidation
Initiative, the Cloud Computing Initiative, and the IT Shared Services
Strategy.
PortfolioStat is structured around five phases: (1) baseline data
gathering in which agencies are required to complete a high-level
survey of their IT portfolio status and establish a commodity IT
baseline; (2) analysis and proposed action plan in which agencies are
to use the data gathered in phase 1 and other available agency data to
develop a proposed action plan for consolidating commodity IT; (3)
PortfolioStat session in which agencies are required to hold a face-to-
face, evidence-based review of their IT portfolio with the Federal
Chief Information Officer (CIO) and key stakeholders from the agency
to discuss the agency's portfolio data and proposed action plan, and
agree on concrete next steps to rationalize the agency's IT portfolio
that would result in a final plan; (4) final action plan
implementation, in which agencies are to, among other things, migrate
at least two commodity IT investments; and (5) lessons learned, in
which agencies are required to document lessons learned, successes,
and challenges. Each of these phases is associated with more specific
requirements and deadlines.
OMB has reported that the PortfolioStat effort has the potential to
save the government $2.5 billion through fiscal year 2015 by
consolidating and eliminating duplicative systems.
Agencies Addressed PortfolioStat Requirements, but Baselines and
Consolidation Plans Were Not All Complete:
In its memo on implementing PortfolioStat, OMB established several key
requirements for agencies: (1) designating a lead official with
responsibility for implementing the process; (2) completing a high-
level survey of their IT portfolio; (3) developing a baseline of the
number, types, and costs of their commodity IT investments; (4)
holding a face-to-face PortfolioStat session with key stakeholders to
agree on actions to address duplication and inefficiencies in their
commodity IT investments; (5) developing final action plans to
document these actions; (6) migrating two commodity IT areas to shared
services; and (7) documenting lessons learned.[Footnote 15] In
addition, in guidance supporting the memo, agencies were asked to
report estimated savings and cost avoidance associated with their
consolidation and shared service initiatives through fiscal year 2015.
All 26 agencies that were required to implement the PortfolioStat
process took actions to address OMB's requirements. However, there
were shortcomings in their implementation of selected requirements,
such as addressing all required elements of the final action plan and
migrating two commodity areas to a shared service by the end of 2012.
Table 1 summarizes the agencies' implementation of the requirements in
the memo, which are discussed in more detail below.
Table 1: Agencies' Implementation of PortfolioStat Requirements:
Agency: Agriculture;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: No;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: Yes;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 5 of 7.
Agency: Commerce;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: No;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: Yes;
Complete two migration efforts: Yes;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 6 of 7.
Agency: Defense;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: No;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: Yes;
Submit lessons learned: Yes[B];
Requirements met: 5 of 7.
Agency: DHS;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: Yes;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: Yes;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 6 of 7.
Agency: Education;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: Yes;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: Yes;
Complete two migration efforts: Yes;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 7 of 7.
Agency: Energy;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: Yes;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: Yes;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 6 of 7.
Agency: EPA;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: No;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: No;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 4 of 7.
Agency: GSA;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: Yes;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: Yes;
Complete two migration efforts: No;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 6 of 7.
Agency: HHS;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: Yes;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: Yes;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 6 of 7.
Agency: HUD;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: No;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: No;
Submit lessons learned: Yes[B];
Requirements met: 4 of 7.
Agency: Interior;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: No;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: No;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 4 of 7.
Agency: Justice;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: Yes;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: Yes;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 6 of 7.
Agency: Labor;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: No;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: No;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 4 of 7.
Agency: NARA;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: Yes;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: Yes;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 6 of 7.
Agency: NASA;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: Yes;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: No;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 5 of 7.
Agency: NRC;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: No;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: Yes;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 5 of 7.
Agency: NSF;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: Yes;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: No;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 5 of 7.
Agency: OPM;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: No;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: No;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 4 of 7.
Agency: SBA;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: No;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: Yes;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 5 of 7.
Agency: SSA;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: No;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: Yes;
Complete two migration efforts: No;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 5 of 7.
Agency: State;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: Yes;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: No;
Submit lessons learned: Yes[B];
Requirements met: 5 of 7.
Agency: Transportation;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: Yes;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: No;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 5 of 7.
Agency: Treasury;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: Yes;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: Yes;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 6 of 7.
Agency: USACE;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: Yes;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: No;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 5 of 7.
Agency: USAID;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: No;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: No;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 4 of 7.
Agency: VA;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: Yes;
Complete IT portfolio survey: Yes;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: Yes;
Hold PortfolioStat session: Yes;
Complete action plan with required elements: No;
Complete two migration efforts: No;
Submit lessons learned: Yes;
Requirements met: 5 of 7.
Agency: No. of agencies that met requirement;
Designate PortfolioStat lead: 26 of 26;
Complete IT portfolio survey: 26 of 26;
Develop commodity IT baseline[A]: 14 of 26;
Hold PortfolioStat session: 26 of 26;
Complete action plan with required elements: 4 of 26;
Complete two migration efforts: 12 of 26;
Submit lessons learned: 26 of 26.
Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation.
Note: DHS--Department of Homeland Security; EPA--Environmental
Protection Agency; GSA--General Services Administration; HHS--
Department of Health and Human Services; HUD--Department of Housing
and Urban Development; NARA--National Archives and Records
Administration; NASA--National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
NRC--U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; NSF--National Science
Foundation; OPM--Office of Personnel Management; SBA--Small Business
Administration; SSA--Social Security Administration; USACE--U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers; USAID--U.S. Agency for International Development;
VA--Department of Veterans Affairs.
[A] Agencies were given a rating of "no" if they could not ensure the
completeness of their baseline information.
[B] Agencies reported that they had submitted lessons learned
information in their final action plan.
[End of table]
Agencies Generally Designated the CIO as the Lead for PortfolioStat
Efforts:
In the memo for implementing the PortfolioStat initiative, OMB
required each agency's chief operating officer (COO) to designate and
communicate within 10 days of the issuance of the memo an individual
with direct reporting authority to the COO to lead the agency's
PortfolioStat implementation efforts. Consistent with a recent OMB
memo requiring chief information officers (CIO) to take responsibility
for commodity IT,[Footnote 16] 19 of the 26 agencies designated the
CIO or chief technology officer to lead their PortfolioStat efforts.
The remaining 7 agencies designated the Assistant Attorney General for
Administration (Department of Justice), the deputy CIO (Department of
Transportation), the Assistant Secretary for Management (Department of
the Treasury), the Office of Information and Technology Chief
Financial Officer (Department of Veterans Affairs), the Director,
Office of Information Resources Management, Chief Human Capital
Officer (National Science Foundation), the Senior Advisor to the
Deputy Commissioner/Chief Operating Officer (Social Security
Administration), and the Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator (U.S.
Agency for International Development).
Portfolio Survey Provided Status of CIO Authority and Other Issues:
As part of the baseline data-gathering phase, OMB required agencies to
complete a high-level survey of the status of their IT portfolio. The
survey asked agencies to provide information related to implementing
OMB guidance, including information on the CIO's explicit authority to
review and approve the entire IT portfolio,[Footnote 17] the
percentage of IT investments that are reflected in the agency's EA
(required in OMB Circular A-130),[Footnote 18] and the percentage of
agency IT investments (major and non-major) that have gone through the
TechStat process, both agency-led and OMB-led (required in OMB M-11-
29).[Footnote 19]
While all 26 agencies completed the survey, the survey responses
highlighted that agencies varied in the maturity of their IT portfolio
management practices. In particular, 6 agencies reported varying
levels of CIO authority, 5 agencies reported that less than 100
percent of investments were reflected in the agency's EA, and most
agencies noted that less than 50 percent of their major and non-major
investments had gone through the TechStat process.
Following are highlights of their responses:
CIO authority: Twenty of the 26 agencies stated that they either had a
formal memorandum or policy in place explicitly noting the CIO's
authority to review and approve the entire agency IT portfolio or that
the CIO collaborated with others (such as members of an investment
review board) to exercise this authority. However, the remaining 6
agencies either reported that the CIO did not have this authority or
there were limitations to the CIO's authority:
* The Department of Energy reported that while its CIO worked with IT
governance groups, by law, the department CIO has no direct authority
over IT investments in two semi-autonomous agencies (the National
Nuclear Security Administration and the Energy Information
Administration[Footnote 20]).
* Although the Department of Health and Human Services reported having
a formal memo in place outlining the CIO's authority and ability to
review the entire IT portfolio, it also noted that the CIO had limited
influence and ability to recommend changes to it.
* The Department of State reported that its CIO currently has
authority over just 40 percent of IT investments within the department.
* The National Aeronautics and Space Administration reported that its
CIO does not have authority to review and approve the entire agency IT
portfolio.
* The Office of Personnel Management reported that the CIO advises the
Director, who approves the IT portfolio, but this role is not
explicitly defined.
* The U.S. Agency for International Development reported that the
CIO's authority is limited to the portfolio that is executed within
the office of the CIO.
* It is important to note that OMB's survey did not specifically
require agencies to disclose limitations their CIOs might have in
their ability to exercise the authorities and responsibilities
provided by law and OMB guidance. Thus it is not clear whether all
those who have such limitations reported them or whether those who
reported limitations disclosed all of them.
We recently reported that while federal law provides CIOs with
adequate authority to manage IT for their agencies, limitations exist
that impede their ability to exercise this authority.[Footnote 21] We
noted that OMB's memo on CIO authorities[Footnote 22] was a positive
step in reaffirming the importance of the role of CIOs in improving
agency IT management, but did not require them to measure and report
the progress of CIOs in carrying out these responsibilities.
Consequently, we recommended that the Director of OMB establish
deadlines and metrics that require agencies to demonstrate the extent
to which their CIOs are exercising the authorities and
responsibilities provided by law and OMB's guidance. In response, OMB
stated that it would ask agencies to report on the implementation of
the memo.
The high-level survey responses regarding CIO authority at agencies
indicate that several CIOs still do not exercise the authority needed
to review and approve the entire IT portfolio, consistent with OMB
guidance. Although OMB has issued guidance and required agencies to
report on actions taken to implement it, this has not been sufficient
to ensure that agency COOs address the issue of CIO authority at their
respective agencies. As a result, agencies are hindered in addressing
certain responsibilities set out in the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996,
[Footnote 23] which established the position of CIO to advise and
assist agency heads in managing IT investments. Until the Director of
OMB and the Federal CIO require agencies to fully disclose limitations
their CIOs may have in exercising the authorities and responsibilities
provided by law and OMB's guidance, OMB may lack crucial information
needed to understand and address the factors that could prevent
agencies' from successfully implementing the PortfolioStat initiative.
Investments reflected in agencies' enterprise architecture: Twenty one
of the 26 agencies reported that 100 percent of their IT investments
are reflected in their agency's EA, while the remaining 5 agencies
reported less than 100 percent: Commerce (90 percent), Justice (97
percent), State (40 percent), National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (17 percent), and U.S. Agency for International
Development (75 percent). According to OMB guidance, agencies must
support an architecture with a complete inventory of agency
information resources, including stakeholders and customers,
equipment, systems, services, and funds devoted to information
resources management and IT, at an appropriate level of detail.
[Footnote 24] Until these agencies' enterprise architectures reflect
100 percent of their IT investments, they will be limited in their
ability to use this tool as a mechanism to identify low-value,
duplicative, or wasteful investments.
TechStat process: Twenty-one of the 26 agencies reported that less
than 50 percent of major and non-major investments had gone through
the TechStat process and 1 reported that more than 50 percent of its
investments had gone through the process.[Footnote 25] As we have
previously reported, TechStat accountability sessions have the value
of focusing management attention on troubled projects and establishing
clear action items to turn the projects around or terminate them.
[Footnote 26] In addition, the TechStat model is consistent with
government and industry best practices for overseeing IT investments,
including our own guidance on IT investment management processes.
[Footnote 27] Consistent with these survey responses, in June 2013 we
reported that the number of TechStat sessions held to date was
relatively small compared to the current number of medium-and high-
risk IT investments at federal agencies. Accordingly, we recommended
that OMB require agencies to conduct TechStat sessions on certain IT
investments, depending on their risk level. Holding TechStat sessions
will help strengthen overall IT governance and oversight and will help
agencies to better manage their IT portfolio and reduce waste. OMB
generally concurred with our recommendation and stated that it was
taking steps to address it.
Commodity IT Baselines Were Not All Complete:
As part of the baseline data-gathering phase, each of the 26 agencies
was also required to develop a comprehensive commodity IT baseline
including information on each of the 13 types of commodity IT. Among
other things, they were to include the fiscal year 2011 obligations
incurred for commodity IT services and the number of systems providing
these services.
The 26 agencies reported that they obligated approximately $13.5
billion in fiscal year 2011 for commodity IT, with the majority of
these obligations (about $8.1 billion) for investments related to IT
Infrastructure. Agencies also classified approximately 71.2 percent of
the commodity IT systems identified (about 1,937 of the 2,721
reported) as enterprise IT systems.[Footnote 28] Further, as
illustrated in figure 1, of the total systems reported, most were
related to IT security, whereas the fewest systems were related to
grants-related transfer to state and local governments.
Figure 1: Number of Business and Enterprise Commodity IT Systems
Reported by Agencies:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Commodity IT system type: IT security (not identity and access
management);
Number of systems: 864.
Commodity IT system type: Web hosting, infrastructure, and content;
Number of systems: 470.
Commodity IT system type: Human resources management;
Number of systems: 375.
Commodity IT system type: Financial management;
Number of systems: 309.
Commodity IT system type: Collaboration (non-Email);
Number of systems: 267.
Commodity IT system type: Identity and access management;
Number of systems: 205.
Commodity IT system type: Email;
Number of systems: 191.
Commodity IT system type: Grants-related federal financial assistance;
Number of systems: 59.
Commodity IT system type: Grants-related transfer to state and local
governments;
Number of systems: 41.
Source: GAO analysis of agency and OMB reported data.
Note: The number of Defense business and enterprise commodity IT
systems were not included because the department did not provide this
information to OMB as part of the 2012 PortfolioStat.
[End of figure]
When collecting data, it is important to have assurance that the data
are accurate. We have previously reported on the need for agencies,
when providing information to OMB, to explain the procedures used to
verify their data.[Footnote 29] Specifically, agencies should ensure
that reported data are sufficiently complete, accurate, and
consistent, and also identify any significant data limitations.
Explaining the limitations of information can provide a context for
understanding and assessing the challenges agencies face in gathering,
processing, and analyzing needed data. We have also reiterated the
importance of providing OMB with complete and accurate data and the
possible negative impact of that data being missing or incomplete.
[Footnote 30]
While all 26 agencies developed commodity IT baselines, these
baselines were not all complete. Specifically, 12 agencies (the
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Housing and Urban
Development, Labor, and the Interior; the Environmental Protection
Agency, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management,
Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and
U.S. Agency for International Development) could not ensure the
completeness of their commodity IT baseline, either because they did
not identify a process for this or faced challenges in collecting
complete information. These agencies reported they were unable to
ensure the completeness of their information for a range of reasons,
including that they do not typically capture the required data at the
level of detail required by OMB, that they used service contracts
which do not allow visibility into specifics on the commodity IT
inventory, that they lacked visibility into bureaus' commodity IT
information, and that OMB's time frames did not allow for verification
of information collected from lower-level units of the organization.
Until agencies develop a complete commodity IT baseline, they may not
have sufficient information to identify further consolidation
opportunities.
While it is important that reported data are sufficiently complete,
accurate, and consistent, OMB did not require agencies to verify their
data or disclose any limitations on the data provided and does not
plan to collect this information as agencies provide updated
information in quarterly reporting. Until OMB requires agencies to
verify their data and disclose any limitations in integrated data
collection quarterly reporting, it may lack information it needs to
more effectively oversee agencies' investment in commodity IT and
identify Portfolio cost savings.
Key Stakeholders Generally Attended PortfolioStat Sessions:
All 26 agencies held a PortfolioStat session in 2012, consistent with
OMB's requirement. In addition, the agencies noted that the agency
CIO, Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and COO--
the key stakeholders identified in OMB memorandum 12-10--in many
instances attended this session.[Footnote 31] In the instances where
key stakeholders did not attend, authorized representatives of those
stakeholders generally attended in their place, according to agency
officials. Involvement from key stakeholders in agencies'
PortfolioStat sessions is critical to ensuring agencies are maximizing
their efforts to successfully implement PortfolioStat.
Agencies' Action Plans Did Not Always Address All Required Elements:
Agencies were required by OMB to complete a final action plan that
addressed eight specific elements: (1) describe plans to consolidate
authority over commodity IT spending under the agency CIO;[Footnote
32] (2) establish specific targets and deadlines for commodity IT
spending reductions; (3) outline plans to migrate at least two
commodity IT areas to shared services by December 31, 2012; (4) target
duplicative systems or contracts that support common business
functions for consolidation; (5) illustrate how investments within the
IT portfolio align with the agency's mission and business functions;
(6) establish criteria for identifying wasteful, "low-value," or
duplicative investments; (7) establish a process to identify these
potential investments and a schedule for eliminating them from the
portfolio; and (8) improve governance and program management using
best practices and, where possible, benchmarks.
All 26 agencies completed an action plan as required by OMB, but the
extent to which they addressed the required items varied.
Specifically, 18 agencies fully addressed at least six of the eight
required elements--with Commerce, Education, General Services
Administration, and Social Security Administration addressing all of
them--and the remaining 8 agencies fully addressed five requirements
or fewer and either partially addressed or did not address others. The
consolidation of commodity IT spending under the agency CIO and
establishment of criteria for identifying low-value, wasteful, and
duplicative investments were the elements that were addressed the
least (12 and 9 agencies respectively); and the alignment of
investments to the agency's mission and improvement of governance and
program management were addressed by all agencies. Table 2 shows the
extent to which the 26 agencies addressed the required elements in
their action plan.
Until agencies address the items that were required in the
PortfolioStat action plan in future OMB reporting, they will not be in
a position to fully realize the intended benefits of the PortfolioStat
initiative.
Table 2: Extent to Which Agency Action Plans Addressed Required
Elements:
Agency: Agriculture;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: No;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: Commerce;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: Yes;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: Defense;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: No;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: DHS;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: No;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: Education;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: Yes;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: Energy;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: No;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: No;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: EPA;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: No;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Partially;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: No;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: GSA;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: Yes;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: HHS;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: Partially;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: HUD;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: Yes;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: No;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: Interior;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: Yes;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: No;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: Justice;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: Yes;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Partially;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: Labor;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: Partially;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Partially;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: NARA;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: No;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Partially;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: No;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: No;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: NASA;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: No;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Partially;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: No;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: No;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: NRC;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: Partially;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
No;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Partially;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Partially;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: NSF;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: No;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: No;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: OPM;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: Yes;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Partially;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Partially;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: SBA;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: Partially;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
No;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Partially;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Partially;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: SSA;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: Yes;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: State;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: No;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Partially;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: No;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Partially;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Partially;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: Transportation;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: No;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Partially;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Partially;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Partially;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: Treasury;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: No;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Yes;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: No;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: USACE;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: No;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Partially;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: No;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Partially;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: USAID;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: Yes;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Partially;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Partially;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Agency: VA;
Consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO: Yes;
Establish targets and deadlines for commodity IT spending reductions:
Yes;
Migrate at least two commodity IT areas to shared services: Yes;
Target duplicative systems or contracts for consolidation: Partially;
Mission and business function alignment: Yes;
Criteria for wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments: Yes;
Process to identify and schedule to eliminate wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments: Yes;
Improve governance and program management: Yes.
Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation.
Notes: A "partially" rating was given if the plan addressed a portion
but not all of the information required in the element. DHS--
Department of Homeland Security; EPA--Environmental Protection Agency;
GSA--General Services Administration; HHS--Department of Health and
Human Services; HUD--Department of Housing and Urban Development;
NARA--National Archives and Records Administration; NASA--National
Aeronautics and Space Administration; NRC--U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; NSF--National Science Foundation; OPM--Office of Personnel
Management; SBA--Small Business Administration; SSA--Social Security
Administration; USACE--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; USAID--U.S.
Agency for International Development; VA--Department of Veterans
Affairs.
[A] While Homeland Security's final PortfolioStat action plan did not
include this required element, the department provided information to
OMB in May 2013 that addressed their effort to consolidate commodity
IT spending under the CIO. Therefore, we did not make a recommendation
to Homeland Security to require them to report on this element in
future OMB reporting.
[End of table]
Agencies Did Not All Complete Required Migration Efforts:
Memorandum 12-10 required the 26 agencies to complete the migration of
the two commodity IT areas mentioned in their action plan to shared
services by December 31, 2012 (see app. II for the list of migration
efforts by agency). However, 13 of the 26 agencies (the Departments of
Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, State,
Transportation and Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection
Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Office of Personnel Management, Social Security
Administration, U.S. Agency for International Development, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) reported that they still had not
completed the migration of these areas as of August 2013. These
agencies reported several reasons for this, including delays in
establishing contracts with vendors due to the current budget
situation, and delays due to technical challenges.
While OMB has stated that this initial requirement to migrate two
systems was to initiate consolidation activities at the agencies, and
not necessarily an action which it was intending to track for
compliance, tracking the progress of such efforts would help to ensure
accountability for agencies' results and the continued progress of
PortfolioStat. OMB's 2013 PortfolioStat memo includes a requirement
for agencies to report quarterly on the status of consolidation
efforts and the actual and planned cost savings and/or avoidances
achieved or expected, but the guidance does not specify that agencies
should report on the status of the two migration efforts initiated in
2012. Until agencies report on the progress in consolidating the two
commodity IT areas to shared services and OMB requires them to report
on the status of these two efforts in the integrated data collection
quarterly reporting, agencies will be held less accountable for the
results of all their PortfolioStat efforts.
Lessons Learned Highlight Importance of CIO Authority and Value
Engineering:
Memorandum 12-10 required agencies to document and catalogue
successes, challenges, and lessons learned from the PortfolioStat
process into a document which was to be submitted to OMB by February
1, 2013.[Footnote 33] Of the 26 agencies required to implement the
PortfolioStat process, 23 agencies submitted lessons learned
documentation. The 3 agencies that did not submit lessons learned in
the format requested by OMB indicated that they did not submit this
documentation because lessons learned had already been included in
their final action plans.
Several agencies identified lessons learned related to the CIO's
authority and the use of an IT valuation model (12 and 15,
respectively).[Footnote 34] More specifically, 8 agencies noted that
OMB's requirements for a plan to consolidate commodity IT spending
under the agency CIO and to identify the extent to which the CIO
possesses explicit agency authority to review and approve the entire
agency IT portfolio had enabled their agencies to improve the
management of their commodity IT and portfolio. Further, 4 agencies
stated that the requirements regarding CIO authority would help them
identify opportunities to achieve efficiencies and reduce duplication
or migrate areas to a shared service. In addition, 1 agency encouraged
OMB to continue to provide guidance and issue directives related to
CIO authority and empowerment. With respect to the agencies' use of an
IT valuation model, 8 agencies generally recognized the value of using
such a model; however, they identified challenges in determining the
appropriate model and the need to continue to refine processes and
analyze the supporting cost data. Two agencies also stated that OMB
should assist in facilitating and sharing IT valuation model best
practices and other benchmarks among federal agencies. More
specifically, 1 agency stated that OMB should assist in the
development of a federal IT valuation model, and another agency
suggested that best practices regarding IT valuation models should
include those from private sector institutions.
As part of the 2013 OMB memorandum on PortfolioStat, OMB generally
identified the same broad themes from the lessons learned documents
that agencies reported. OMB has also established a page related to the
2013 PortfolioStat implementation.
Opportunities and Estimated Cost Savings Are Underreported:
In separate guidance supporting the PortfolioStat initiative, OMB
asked agencies to report planned cost savings and avoidance[Footnote
35] associated with their consolidation and shared service initiatives
through fiscal year 2015. While agencies included consolidation
efforts for which they had cost savings numbers, six agencies also
reported planned migration or consolidation efforts for which they had
incomplete information on cost savings and avoidance.
According to OMB, agencies reported a total of 98 consolidation
opportunities and $2.53 billion in planned cost savings and avoidance
for fiscal years 2013 through 2015. However, OMB's overall estimate of
the number of opportunities and cost savings is underreported. Among
other things, it does not include the Departments of Defense and
Justice because these agencies did not report their plans in the
template OMB was using to compile its overall estimate. While OMB
acknowledged that the $2.53 billion in planned cost savings and
avoidance was underreported when it issued the estimate, it did not
qualify the figure quoted. Identifying any limitations or
qualifications to reported figures is important in order to provide a
more complete understanding of the information presented. Until OMB
discloses any limitations or qualifications to the data it reports on
the agency's consolidation efforts and associated savings and
avoidance, the public and other stakeholders may lack crucial
information needed to understand the current status of PortfolioStat
and agency progress in meeting the goals of the initiative.
Our analysis of data collected from the 26 agencies shows that they
are reporting 204 opportunities and at least $5.8 billion in savings
through fiscal year 2015, at least $3.3 billion more than the number
initially reported by OMB. See table 3 for an overview of the number
of opportunities and reported cost savings and avoidance by agency.
See appendix III for a detailed list of opportunities and associated
savings by agency.[Footnote 36]
Table 3: Agency-Reported PortfolioStat Initiatives and Estimated Cost
Savings and Avoidance:
Agency: Agriculture;
Number of initiatives: 3;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $72.84 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $86.61 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $109.54 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $268.99 million.
Agency: Commerce;
Number of initiatives: 8;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $8.19 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $16.60 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $43.01 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $67.80 million.
Agency: Defense[A];
Number of initiatives: 26;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: [Empty];
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: [Empty];
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: [Empty];
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $3.2 billion-5.3 billion.
Agency: DHS;
Number of initiatives: 15;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $369.27 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $501.25 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $501.25 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $1.372 billion.
Agency: Education;
Number of initiatives: 18;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $2.02 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $1.63 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $1.63 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $5.28 million.
Agency: Energy;
Number of initiatives: 16;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $8.21 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $10.36 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $12.15 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $30.72 million.
Agency: EPA;
Number of initiatives: 2;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $0.00;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $0.00;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $0.00;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $0.00.
Agency: GSA;
Number of initiatives: 3;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $2.12 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $3.29 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $7.79 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $13.20 million.
Agency: HHS;
Number of initiatives: 2;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $0.00;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $0.00;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $0.00;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $0.00.
Agency: HUD;
Number of initiatives: 4;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $2.87 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $2.87 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $2.86 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $8.60 million.
Agency: Interior;
Number of initiatives: 6;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $20.12 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $22.95 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $18.82 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $61.89 million.
Agency: Justice[B];
Number of initiatives: 12;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: [Empty];
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: [Empty];
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: [Empty];
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $35.00 million.
Agency: Labor;
Number of initiatives: 12;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $1.75 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $8.59 million - $9.89 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $11.96 - $13.26; million
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $22.30 million - $24.90
million.
Agency: NARA;
Number of initiatives: 3;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: -$0.02 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: -$0.02 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $6.47 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $6.43 million.
Agency: NASA;
Number of initiatives: 6;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $19.02 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $23.29 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $24.97 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $67.29 million.
Agency: NRC;
Number of initiatives: 8;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $0.00;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $9.60;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $0.00;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $9.60 million.
Agency: NSF;
Number of initiatives: 2;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $0.27 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $0.24 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $0.24 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $0.75 million.
Agency: OPM;
Number of initiatives: 2;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $0.00;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $3.50 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $0.00;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $3.50 million.
Agency: SBA;
Number of initiatives: 6;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $0.43 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $0.37 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $0.00;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $0.79 million.
Agency: SSA;
Number of initiatives: 7;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $7.23 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $150.15 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $8.78 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $166.16 million.
Agency: State;
Number of initiatives: 4;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $0.00;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $20.00 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $6.00 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $26.00 million.
Agency: Transportation;
Number of initiatives: 24;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $14.40 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $36.57 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $0.00;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $50.98 million.
Agency: Treasury;
Number of initiatives: 2;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $24.03 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $67.75 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $101.00 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $192.78 million.
Agency: USACE;
Number of initiatives: 2;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $0.50 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $0.50 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $0.50 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $1.50 million.
Agency: USAID;
Number of initiatives: 4;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $3.44 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $5.24 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $8.76 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $17.44 million.
Agency: VA;
Number of initiatives: 7;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $54.18 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $52.51 million;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $89.22 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $195.92 million.
Agency: Total[C];
Number of initiatives: 204;
FY13 cost savings and avoidance: $610.87 million;
FY14 cost savings and avoidance: $1.024 billion-1.025 billion;
FY15 cost savings and avoidance: $954.96 million - 956.26 million;
Total cost savings and avoidance FY13-FY15: $5.825 billion - 7.927
billion.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
Note: DHS--Department of Homeland Security; EPA--Environmental
Protection Agency; GSA--General Services Administration; HHS--
Department of Health and Human Services; HUD--Department of Housing
and Urban Development; NARA--National Archives and Records
Administration; NASA--National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
NRC--U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; NSF--National Science
Foundation; OPM--Office of Personnel Management; SBA--Small Business
Administration; SSA--Social Security Administration; USACE--U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers; USAID--U.S. Agency for International Development;
VA--Department of Veterans Affairs.
Note: FY--fiscal year.
[A] Defense did not provide information on the number of opportunities
or potential cost savings to OMB in the cost savings template. This
information was obtained from the department's final action plan and
other referenced documentation. The department reported savings for
fiscal year 2012-2015 but did not break down cost savings by
initiative.
[B] Justice did not provide information on the number of opportunities
or potential cost savings to OMB in the cost savings template. This
information was obtained from the department's final action plan.
According to officials, the $35 million total represents a rough-order-
of-magnitude estimate.
[C] Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
[End of table]
Selected Departments' Plans Identified Billions in Potential Cost
Savings Using Various Processes, but Support for These Savings Is
Uneven:
In their portfolio improvement plans, the five agencies selected for
our review--the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, the Interior, the
Treasury, and Veterans Affairs--identified a total of 52 initiatives
expected to achieve at least $3.7 billion in potential cost savings or
avoidance through fiscal year 2015, as well as several improvements of
processes for managing their IT portfolios. To identify these
opportunities, the agencies used several processes and tools,
including, to varying degrees, their EA and valuation model, as
recommended by OMB in its PortfolioStat guidance. More consistently
using the processes recommended by OMB could assist agencies in
identifying further opportunities for consolidation and shared
services. In addition, four agencies did not always provide support
for their estimated savings or show how it linked to the estimates.
Better support for the estimated savings would increase the likelihood
that these savings will be achieved.
Department of Agriculture:
The Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) identified two contract
consolidations--the Cellular Phone Contract Consolidation and the
Enterprise Contracts for Standardized Security Products and Services--
as the commodity IT investments it planned to consolidate by December
2012. In addition to these two efforts, the department identified
three efforts that it reported to OMB would yield cost savings or
avoidance between fiscal years 2013 and 2015 (IT Infrastructure
Consolidation/Enterprise Data Center Consolidation, Enterprise IT
Systems: Tier 1 Helpdesk Consolidation, and Enterprise IT Systems:
Geospatial Consolidation Initiative). In addition, Agriculture
identified several other opportunities for which it had yet to
identify associated cost savings or avoidance. According to officials
from the Office of the CIO, several of the consolidation opportunities
were identified prior to the PortfolioStat initiative being launched,
as part of the Secretary's initiative to streamline administrative
processes. The department also identified several process improvement
efforts which, while not all specific to commodity IT, would help
better manage these types of investments. Examples of the process
improvement efforts include (1) recommitting to internal TechStats as
a tool for evaluating all IT investments, (2) acquiring a portfolio
management tool, and (3) implementing a department-wide portfolio
management program that reviews major and non-major investments on a
continual basis.
Agriculture officials stated that they used their EA process to
identify consolidation and shared service opportunities, and that the
department checks for architectural compliance throughout its
governance process. For example, Agriculture's Executive IT Investment
Review Board is to ensure that the department integrates information
systems investment decisions with its EA and that the department's
decisions comply with EA. In addition, Agriculture's Information
Priorities and Investment Council is responsible for reviews of
architectural compliance and for using the EA as a framework for
investment decision making. These officials also stated that while the
department determines the value of its IT investments through
evaluation, analyses, prioritization, and scoring, it does not have a
formal, documented valuation model for doing so. Having such a model
would enhance the department's ability to identify additional
opportunities to consolidate or eliminate low-value, duplicative, or
wasteful investments.
The department also uses other processes to help manage its IT
investments. For example, Agriculture has an Executive IT Investment
Review Board which is to use a scoring process in ensuring the
alignment of investments with strategic goals and objectives. Further,
the department noted the establishment of several governance boards,
and processes, such as the EA, IT acquisition approval request, and
capital planning and investment control, to ensure such alignment.
Agriculture anticipates that its efforts will generate about $221
million in cost savings or avoidance for fiscal years 2012 through
2015 and provided varying degrees of support for these estimates.
Specifically, for two of the four initiatives for which we requested
support[Footnote 37] (Cellular Phone Contract Consolidation and the IT
Infrastructure Consolidation/Enterprise Data Center Consolidation), it
provided support for calculations for cost savings and avoidance
estimates. However, these estimates did not match those provided to
OMB for the 2012 PortfolioStat process. For the third initiative,
Geospatial Consolidation, Agriculture did not provide support for the
estimate reported to OMB as part of the 2012 PortfolioStat process;
however, it noted that this current estimate is $58.76 million less
than originally reported to OMB. For the fourth, a department official
from the office of the Chief Information Officer said no savings were
being anticipated. Documentation received from the department noted
that this effort was not a cost savings initiative but a way to meet
several programmatic needs: to streamline the work required for
agencies procuring security services, to improve the quality and
repeatability of the security products across the agencies, and to
establish a process flow that ensured the department security were
included in any delivered products. An Agriculture official noted
challenges with calculating cost savings or avoidance but did not
identify any plans to improve its cost estimating processes. A lack of
support for its current estimates may make it difficult for
Agriculture to realize these savings and for OMB and other
stakeholders to accurately gauge its performance.
Department of Defense:
The Department of Defense (Defense) identified its Unclassified
Information Sharing Service/All Partner Network and the General Fund
Enterprise Business System as the two commodity opportunities that
would be consolidated by December 2012. In addition to these 2
efforts, Defense identified 24 other efforts that would be undertaken
from 2012 to 2015 to consolidate commodity IT services. These
consolidation efforts were mostly in the areas of Enterprise IT and IT
infrastructure, though the department also identified a significant
effort to move its major components to enterprise-wide business
systems. In addition, Defense also identified several process
improvements, including restructuring its IT governance boards,
establishing a department IT Commodity Council, and optimizing IT
services purchasing. Defense began its effort to consolidate and
improve IT services in 2010 at the request of the Secretary, prior to
the launch of PortfolioStat. The Defense CIO developed a 10-Point Plan
for IT Modernization focused on consolidating infrastructure and
streamlining processes in several commodity IT areas, including
consolidating enterprise networks, delivering a department cloud
environment, standardizing IT platforms, and taking an enterprise
approach for procurement of common IT hardware and software. Each of
the component CIOs, in coordination with the Defense CIO, was tasked
with developing plans to achieve these efforts within their own
component.
As part of this process, Defense utilized its EA and valuation model
to determine the list of IT improvements because, according to
officials from the Office of the CIO, these processes were
incorporated into its existing requirements, acquisition, and
planning, programming, budget, and execution processes. In particular,
Defense has taken a federated approach for developing and managing its
EA that is based on enterprise-level guidance, capability areas, and
component architectures and is currently in the process of drafting a
new EA program management plan for improvement effectiveness and
interoperability across missions and infrastructure. In addition,
according to a Defense official, the department has done extensive
work related to implementing a valuation model, and its value
engineering process for IT investments has been integrated into the
department's acquisition process. Defense also has a department
website devoted to providing guidance on its valuation model. Using
the EA and valuation model increases the likelihood that the
department will identify a comprehensive list of opportunities for
consolidation.[Footnote 38]
Defense's CIO estimates that the consolidation efforts will save
between $3.2 billion and $5.2 billion through fiscal year 2015, and
result in efficiencies between $1.3 billion and $2.2 billion per year
beginning in fiscal year 2016. Defense provided its most recent
estimates for the four initiatives for which we requested support
(Unclassified Information Sharing Service/All Partner Access Network,
data center consolidation, enterprise software purchasing, and General
Fund Enterprise Business System) but was unable to show how these
estimates were calculated. For the first initiative, the issue paper
showing the calculations of estimated savings was reportedly
classified and we therefore decided not to obtain a copy.[Footnote 39]
For the other three initiatives, an official from the Office of the
CIO stated that there was not support available at the department
level. Each component reportedly used its existing planning,
programming, budget and execution process, and associated systems to
determine a overall budget and then identified estimated cost savings
or avoidance related to the commodity initiatives, which were then
aggregated by the department. The official also reported that, because
the department's accounting systems do not collect information at the
level of granularity required for reporting on the PortfolioStat
initiative (e.g., by commodity IT type), it is difficult to show how
numbers were calculated or how they changed over time. In addition,
because component-level systems do not collect commodity IT data, it
had generally been a challenge for the department to determine cost
savings for commodity IT as OMB required. While we recognize the
challenges the department faces in obtaining the support for
consolidation opportunities identified by its components, obtaining it
is critical to ensuring that planned savings and cost avoidance are
realized. This is important considering the size of Defense's
projected savings.
Department of the Interior:
The Department of the Interior (Interior) identified two commodity IT
investments in its action plan and other supporting documentation--
Financial and Business Management System (Deployments 7&8) and
Enterprise Forms System--that it planned to consolidate by December
2012. For fiscal years 2013 to 2015, Interior identified four
additional consolidation opportunities--cloud e-mail and collaboration
services, enterprise eArchive system, circuit consolidation, and the
Networx telecommunications contract. Interior also identified its "IT
Transformation" initiative as a source of additional savings beyond
2015. This initiative is one of the management priorities which,
according to officials, Interior has been focusing on to drive
efficiency, reduce costs, and improve services. It is intended to
streamline processes within the department, to include a single e-mail
system for the department, telecommunications, hosting services, and
an enterprise service desk (help desk).
Interior has also identified efforts to improve processes for managing
its portfolio. Specifically, it is working to fully implement its EA
and to align the IT portfolio more closely with the department's
business priorities and performance goals. In addition, in fiscal year
2010, Interior centralized authority for the agency's IT--which had
previously been delegated to its offices and bureaus--under the CIO.
This consolidation gave the CIO responsibilities for improving the
operating efficiencies of the organizational sub-components and
Interior as a whole. Interior is also establishing several new IT
Investment governance boards to make recommendations to the CIO for
review and approval.
To identify its consolidation opportunities, Interior officials from
the Office of the CIO stated they used their EA. Specifically, the
department established an EA team and a performance-driven
prioritization framework to measure its IT Transformation efforts. The
EA team takes a "ruthless prioritization" approach to align the
department's priorities with the IT Transformation goals. The
priorities are evaluated by IT Transformation goals and expected
outcomes, and supported by successive versions of architectures,
plans, and solutions. In addition to using the EA, officials from the
Office of the CIO stated that the department leveraged a set of
investment processes to identify wasteful, duplicative, and low-value
investments, which includes the use of road maps it has developed for
different functional areas. Collectively, these processes are
integrated into the department's capital planning and investment
control process in order to ensure that the portfolio of IT
investments delivers the desired value to the organization.
Interior officials from the Office of the CIO also reported using its
IT investment valuation process which it has been maturing while also
balancing changes to its IT governance process. More specifically, the
department uses the Value Measuring Methodology, recommended by the
federal CIO Council, to score its bureaus' budget requests. Based on
these assessments, a risk-adjusted value score is assigned to each
major investment. These scores are used to identify funding levels
across Interior's IT portfolio, with risk being viewed from the
standpoint of the "probability of success" for the investment. By
making use of the EA and investment valuation process as recommended
by OMB, Interior has enhanced its ability to identify opportunities to
consolidate or eliminate duplicative, low-value, and wasteful
investments.
Interior anticipates its PortfolioStat efforts will generate
approximately $61.9 million in savings and cost avoidance through
fiscal year 2015 and provided adequate support for these estimates.
Specifically, for the Financial and Business Management System,
Interior provided calculations for the savings for each year from
fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2016. For the other three initiatives--
Electronic Forms System, Networx Telecommunications, and Cloud E-mail
and Collaboration Services--Interior provided estimated savings for
fiscal year 2013, the first year in which savings are anticipated,
which were based on the difference between the fiscal year 2012
baseline and lower costs that had been achieved through the
department's strategic sourcing initiative, and explained that these
savings were expected to be realized each year after--through fiscal
year 2015. Having well-supported estimates increases the likelihood
that Interior will realize its planned savings and provides OMB and
other stakeholders with greater visibility into the department's
performance.
Department of the Treasury:
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) identified two new shared
service opportunities--the Invoice Processing Platform and the
DoNotPay Business Center--as the two commodity IT investments it
planned to consolidate by December 2012; Treasury also reported to OMB
that these efforts would yield cost savings and avoidance for fiscal
years 2013 through 2015. In addition, Treasury identified six
consolidation opportunities it anticipated would generate savings
between fiscal years 2012 and 2014, and two others which did not have
associated cost savings. These consolidation opportunities include
those classified as Business Systems, IT Infrastructure, and
Enterprise IT. Treasury also described several process improvement
efforts which, while not specific to commodity IT, will help better
manage these types of investments. Examples of the process improvement
efforts include establishing criteria for robust reviews of
investments, refining the department's valuation and risk models and
incorporating these models into the business case template at
Treasury's departmental offices, and launching an IT cost model
working group to refine Treasury's IT cost model. Treasury has also
proposed additional steps in its Departmental Offices' IT governance
process and investment life cycle to evaluate the alignment of
investments with its strategic goals and objectives. With respect to
EA, in July 2013, Treasury established a Treasury Departmental
Technical Advisory Working Group. According to its charter, the
working group will be responsible for, among other things, ensuring
the alignment of programs and projects with Treasury's existing
technologies or EA. More specifically, all new and existing
investments are expected to be reviewed and approved by the working
group to ensure such compliance.
Treasury officials from the Office of the CIO stated they had not used
the EA or a valuation model to identify their consolidation
opportunities. In addition, Treasury has yet to develop a valuation
model for assessing the value of its IT investments. According to
officials, Treasury's efforts to develop a valuation model are 30 to
40 percent complete. Further, while it has efforts underway within its
Departmental Offices to develop models for assessing value, cost, and
risk, Treasury has not documented its value engineering process and
associated models. According to the officials, the department's
consolidation opportunities were identified through innovative ideas
from the bureaus that were driven by current budget constraints. While
the identification of these opportunities is not centrally managed or
controlled, Treasury reported that it is currently developing a
systematic process for promoting innovative ideas from its bureaus.
According to Treasury, it uses other processes to help manage IT
investments, including a process for evaluating the alignment of
investments with its strategic goals and objectives via its investment
review boards at both the department-wide and departmental office
levels. Further, Treasury has noted that investments' alignment with
the mission is considered during the annual planning cycle (for
existing and new investments), and during individual
investment/project reviews (for every major investment). While
Treasury identified consolidation and shared service opportunities
through innovative ideas from its bureaus, utilizing the EA and
valuation model could assist Treasury in identifying additional
opportunities for cost savings.
Treasury anticipates it will generate $56.49 million in savings from
fiscal years 2012 through 2014 and provided varying degrees of support
for these estimates.[Footnote 40] Specifically, for two of the three
initiatives that we reviewed supporting documentation for,[Footnote
41] one initiative (DoNotPay Business Center) had supporting
assumptions and calculations; however, these calculations support
earlier estimates Treasury reported for this initiative, and not its
more recent estimates. Treasury did not provide documentation to
support the cost estimates for the two remaining efforts (Fiscal IT
Data Center Consolidation and Business Process Management Status).
Without support for its estimates, Treasury may be challenged in
realizing planned savings, and OMB and other stakeholders will be
hindered in evaluating its progress.
Department of Veterans Affairs:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) identified its VA Server
Virtualization and Elimination of Dedicated Fax Servers as the two
commodity IT investments it planned to consolidate by December 2012.
In its PortfolioStat submission to OMB, VA identified five additional
consolidation opportunities it anticipated would generate savings
between fiscal years 2013 and 2015 (enterprise license agreement,
standardization of spend planning and consolidation of contract, voice
over internet protocol, vista data feeds, and one CPU policy). VA also
described several process improvement efforts in its action plan that,
while not specific to commodity IT, are intended to help better manage
these types of investments. These improvement efforts include updating
its EA process and establishing a Project Management Accountability
System that supports project planning and management control and
responsibilities for IT investments.
VA officials from the Office of the CIO stated that they did not use
their EA (which the department is still maturing) or their valuation
model to identify their consolidation opportunities. Instead, they
stated that VA uses its Ruthless Reduction Taskforce as the main
mechanism for identifying IT commodity consolidation opportunities.
The task force's function is to ensure redundant functionality is
reduced or eliminated and to recommend the reallocation of funds from
low-value projects to higher priorities. Through its operational
analysis process, it looks for excessive expenditures to determine
whether there are redundancies and therefore opportunities to
consolidate into a larger contract or service.[Footnote 42]
While the task force is the main mechanism used to identify
consolidation opportunities, VA officials from the Office of the CIO
stated that the department uses other OMB-recommended processes to
help it identify and prioritize other IT investments. For example, VA
has documented processes for evaluating the alignment of investments
with its strategic goals and objectives via its multiyear planning
process and its senior investment review boards. Specifically, the
department's multiyear planning process provides a framework for
identifying near- and long-term priorities and opportunities for
divestiture, reduction, re-investments, and expansion of IT priorities
and capabilities and timetables. To support this and other planning
processes, VA has established several IT Investment governance boards
that are intended to provide a framework for investment decision
making and accountability to ensure IT initiatives meet the
department's strategic and business objectives in an effective manner.
While VA has identified many opportunities to consolidate commodity IT
investments and move to shared services through its Ruthless Reduction
Task Force and other processes, making use of its EA and valuation
model could help identify additional opportunities.
VA estimates that the consolidation opportunities it reported to OMB
will generate about $196 million in savings from fiscal years 2013
through 2015. However, we could not verify the support for some of the
estimates. In particular, for two of the four initiatives for which we
requested support (Server Virtualization and Eliminate Dedicated Fax
Servers Consolidation), VA provided support for calculations for cost
savings and avoidance estimates. However, these estimates did not
match those provided to OMB for the 2012 PortfolioStat process. For
the third initiative, Renegotiate Microsoft Enterprise License
Agreement, VA did not provide detailed support but instead provided a
written explanation for an overall cost avoidance figure of $161
million that was agreed to by VA's Deputy Chief Information Officer
for Architecture, Strategy and Design and VA's Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Information Technology Management and Chief Financial
Officer for the Office of Information Technology. For the fourth
initiative (one CPU policy), VA stated that the initiative was no
longer a stand-alone project but had been subsumed by the Field Office
Mobile Workers and Telework Support Agreement and that the economic
justification for this consolidation effort had not yet been completed.
Officials reported that in general the lack of a strong cost
estimation process is the main challenge the department faced in
estimating cost savings, even though VA's Ruthless Reduction Task
Force does have a process in place for performing cost estimates for
the initiatives that the task force reviews. VA officials stated that
they plan to address improving their IT cost estimation process issue
with VA's executive leadership team, but did not provide a time frame
for doing so. For the near term, VA recently hired an operations
research analyst to assist IT staff who lack experience with cost and
savings estimation activities and plans to hire two more analysts.
Without support for its estimates, VA will have less assurance that it
can realize planned cost savings and avoidance, and OMB and
stakeholders will be hindered in evaluating its progress.
OMB's Plans Outline PortfolioStat Improvements but Do Not Address All
Issues with Agencies' Efforts:
OMB has outlined several planned improvements to the PortfolioStat
process in a memo issued in March 2013[Footnote 43] that should help
strengthen federal IT portfolio management and address key issues we
have identified with agencies' efforts to implement the initiative. In
particular, OMB has changed its reporting requirements, requiring
agencies to report on progress made on a quarterly basis. In addition,
agencies will also be held accountable for their portfolio management
as part of annual PortfolioStat sessions. However, selective OMB
efforts could be strengthened to improve the PortfolioStat process and
ensure agencies achieve identified cost savings, including addressing
issues related to existing CIO authority at federal agencies, and
publicly reporting on agency-provided data.
OMB's plans identify a number of improvements that should help
strengthen IT portfolio management and address key issues we have
identified:
Agency reporting on PortfolioStat progress: OMB's memorandum has
consolidated previously collected IT plans, reports, and data calls
into three primary collection channels--an information resources
management strategic plan,[Footnote 44] an enterprise road map,
[Footnote 45] and an integrated data collection channel.[Footnote 46]
As part of this reporting requirement, agencies will be required to
provide updates on their progress in meeting key OMB requirements
related to portfolio management best practices, which address issues
identified in this report.
* Agencies must describe how their investment review boards coordinate
between investment decisions, portfolio management, EA, procurement,
and software development methodologies to ensure that IT solutions
meet business requirements, as well as identify areas of waste and
duplication wherever consolidation is possible.
* Agencies are to describe the valuation methodology used in their
governance process to comparatively evaluate investments, including
what criteria and areas are assessed, to ensure greater consistency
and rigor in the process of selecting, controlling, and evaluating
investments an agency decides to fund, de-fund, or terminate.
* Agencies must report their actual and planned cost savings and
avoidances, as well as other metrics, achieved or expected through the
implementation of efforts such as agency migration to shared services
and cloud solutions, the consolidation of commodity IT, and savings
achieved through data center consolidation. In addition, agencies are
to describe their plans to re-invest savings resulting from
consolidations of commodity IT resources (including data centers).
In addition, agencies will now be required to report the status of
their progress in implementing PortfolioStat on a quarterly basis.
Agency integrated data collections were first required to be submitted
in May 2013 and will be updated quarterly beginning in August 2013,
with subsequent updates on the last day of November, and February of
each fiscal year. Requiring agencies to provide consolidated reports
on their progress in meeting key initiatives should help OMB to better
manage these initiatives.
Holding agencies accountable for portfolio management in PortfolioStat
sessions: Moving forward, the PortfolioStat sessions held with agency
stakeholders and OMB officials are intended to involve discussions of
agency efforts related to several ongoing initiatives and their plans
to implement key OMB guidance, such as guidance on CIO authorities, in
order to help agencies mature their management of IT resources.
Specifically, OMB plans to use the documentation and data submitted by
the agencies in May 2013 to determine the state of each agency's IT
portfolio management, such as the use of an EA and valuation
methodology, and develop areas OMB identifies as the most appropriate
opportunities for agencies to innovate, optimize, and protect systems
and data. Based on the session, OMB and the agency are expected to
identify and agree on actionable next steps and specific time frames
for the actions to be taken, which OMB intends to formalize and
transmit in a memorandum to the agency within 2 weeks of the completed
session, and no later than August 31, 2013. Upon receipt of the action
item memorandum, agency PortfolioStat leads are to work with OMB to
establish follow-up discussions as appropriate to track progress
against action items identified. Deviation from the committed schedule
will trigger a requirement for follow-up briefings by the agency to
the Federal CIO no less frequently than quarterly, until corrective
actions have been implemented or the action item is back on schedule.
OMB's efforts to follow up with agencies on a regular basis are
critical to ensuring the success of these efforts. We have previously
reported that OMB-led TechStat sessions have enabled the government to
improve or terminate IT investments that are experiencing performance
problems by focusing management attention on troubled projects and
establishing clear action items to turn the projects around or
terminate them.[Footnote 47] By having similar sessions focusing on
agency IT portfolios, OMB can hold agencies accountable for their
ongoing initiatives to consolidate or eliminate duplicative
investments and achieve significant cost savings.
Improving analytical capabilities: OMB expects to collect information
from agencies as part of PortfolioStat and use a variety of analytical
resources to evaluate the data provided, track agency progress each
quarter, and determine whether there are any areas for improvement to
the process. In addition, OMB plans to provide this information to
Congress as part of the quarterly report it is required to submit to
the Senate and House Appropriations Committees on savings achieved by
OMB's government-wide IT reform efforts. Analyzing and reporting data
on agencies' efforts to implement the PortfolioStat initiative will
help OMB to provide more oversight of these efforts and hold agencies
accountable for information reported in the quarterly reports.
Although OMB's planned improvements should help strengthen the
PortfolioStat initiative going forward, they do not address some of
the shortcomings with efforts to implement the initiative identified
in this report:
Addressing issues with CIO authority: While OMB's memorandum has
indicated that agencies must now report on how their policies,
procedures, and CIO authorities are consistent with OMB Memorandum 11-
29, "Chief Information Officer Authorities,"[Footnote 48] as noted
earlier, OMB's prior guidance and reporting requirements have not been
sufficient to address the implementation of CIO authority at all
agencies. In addition, OMB's 2013 PortfolioStat guidance does not
establish deadlines or metrics for agencies to demonstrate the extent
to which CIOs are exercising the authorities and responsibilities
provided by the Clinger-Cohen Act and OMB guidance, which, as we have
previously recommended, are needed to ensure accountability for acting
on this issue,[Footnote 49] nor does it require them to disclose any
limitations CIOs might have in their ability to exercise their
authority. Until CIOs are able to exercise their full authority, they
will be limited in their ability to implement PortfolioStat and other
initiatives to improve IT management.
Reporting on action plan items that were not addressed: In OMB's 2013
memorandum, agencies are no longer required to submit separate
commodity IT consolidation plans as in 2012 but are to identify the
progress made in implementing portfolio improvements as part of the
broader agency reporting requirement mentioned above. While OMB's
shift to requiring agencies to report on progress now is reasonable
given the goals of PortfolioStat, it was based on the assumption that
agencies would develop robust action plans as a foundation last year.
However, as noted earlier, the submitted agency final action plans
were incomplete in that they did not always address all the required
elements. Going forward, it will be important for agencies to address
the plan items required. In addition, until OMB requires agencies to
report on the status of these items, it may not have assurance that
these agencies' plans for making portfolio improvements fully realize
the benefits of the PortfolioStat initiative.
Ensuring agencies' commodity IT baselines are complete, and reporting
on the status of 2012 migration efforts: OMB's 2013 guidance does not
require agencies to document how they verified their commodity IT
baseline data or disclose any limitations of these data or to report
on the completion of their two 2012 migration efforts. Without such
requirements, it will be more difficult for OMB to hold agencies
accountable for identifying and achieving potential cost savings.
Publicly reporting agency PortfolioStat data: Finally, we have
previously reported that the public display of agencies' data allows
OMB, other oversight bodies, and the general public to hold the
agencies accountable for results and progress.[Footnote 50] While OMB
officials have stated that they intend to make agency-reported data
and the best practices identified for the PortfolioStat effort
publicly available, they have not yet decided specifically which
information they will report. Until OMB publicly reports data agencies
submit on their commodity IT consolidation efforts, including planned
and actual cost savings, it will be more difficult for stakeholders,
including Congress and the public, to monitor agencies' progress and
hold them accountable for reducing duplication and achieving cost
savings.
Conclusions:
OMB's PortfolioStat initiative offers opportunities to save billions
of dollars and improve the way in which agencies manage their
portfolios. While agencies implemented key PortfolioStat requirements,
including establishing a commodity IT baseline and documenting a final
action plan to consolidate commodity IT, shortcomings in their
implementation of these requirements could undermine the savings the
PortfolioStat effort is expected to achieve. First, reported
limitations in CIOs exercising authority over the IT portfolios at six
of the agencies suggests that more needs to be done to empower CIOs to
improve management and oversight of agency IT resources. Second, not
including all IT investments in their EA or developing complete
commodity IT baselines limits agencies' ability to identify further
opportunities for reducing wasteful, duplicative, or low-value
investments. Third, not addressing key elements in action plans for
implementing the PortfolioStat initiative increases the likelihood
that agencies will not achieve all the intended benefits. Finally,
following through on commitments to migrate or consolidate investments
is critical to ensuring accountability for results. Regarding
estimated savings and cost avoidance, the significant understatement--
by at least $2.8 billion--of OMB's reported figures highlights the
importance of ensuring the accuracy of data and disclosing any
limitations or qualifications on reported savings.
The identification by five agencies--the Departments of Agriculture,
Defense, the Interior, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs--of 52
initiatives and more than $3.7 billion in potential cost savings or
avoidance through fiscal year 2015 demonstrates the significant
potential of portfolio improvements to yield ongoing benefits. Making
greater use of their EA and valuation model to identify consolidation
opportunities, as recommended by OMB, could assist agencies in
identifying additional opportunities. In addition, better support for
the estimates of cost savings associated with the opportunities
identified would increase the likelihood that these savings will be
achieved.
OMB's planned improvements to the PortfolioStat process outlined in
its March 2013 guidance--such as streamlining agency reporting on
progress in implementing the process and holding agencies accountable
for these efforts in PortfolioStat sessions--should help the office
provide better oversight and management of government-wide efforts to
consolidate commodity IT. However, OMB's plans do not address key
issues identified in this report, which could strengthen the
PortfolioStat process. In particular, addressing issues of CIO
authority by working directly with agency leadership to establish time
lines and metrics for implementing existing guidance, requiring
agencies to report on the reliability of their commodity baseline data
and the progress of all their consolidation efforts, and making data
on agencies' progress in consolidating commodity IT and achieving cost
savings publicly available will be essential to PortfolioStat's
success in reducing duplication and maximizing the return on
investment in federal IT.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help ensure the success of PortfolioStat, we are making six
recommendations to OMB. We recommend that the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget and the Federal Chief Information Officer
require agencies to fully disclose limitations their CIOs might have
in exercising the authorities and responsibilities provided by law and
OMB's guidance. Particular attention should be paid to the Departments
of Health and Human Services, and State; the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration; the Office of Personnel Management; and the U.S.
Agency for International Development, which reported specific
limitations with the CIO's authority.
In addition, we recommend that the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget direct the Federal Chief Information Officer to:
* require that agencies (1) state what actions have been taken to
ensure the completeness of their commodity IT baseline information and
(2) identify any limitation with this information as part of
integrated data collection quarterly reporting;
* require agencies to report on the progress of their two
consolidation efforts that were to be completed by December 2012 as
part of the integrated data collection quarterly reporting;
* disclose the limitations of any data reported (or disclose the
parameters and assumptions of these data) on the agencies'
consolidation efforts and associated savings and cost avoidance;
* require that agencies report on efforts to address action plan items
as part of future PortfolioStat reporting; and:
* Improve transparency of and accountability for PortfolioStat by
publicly disclosing planned and actual data consolidation efforts and
related cost savings by agency.
We are also making 58 recommendations to 24 of the 26 departments and
agencies in our review to improve their implementation of
PortfolioStat requirements. Appendix IV contains these recommendations.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to OMB and the 26 executive
agencies in our review for comment and received responses from all 27.
Of the 27, 12 agreed with our recommendations directed to them, 5
disagreed or partially disagreed with our recommendations directed to
them, 4 provided additional clarifying information, and 6 (the
Departments of Education, Labor, Transportation, and Treasury; the
Small Business Administration; and the U.S. Agency for International
Development) stated that they had no comments.[Footnote 51] Several
agencies also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as
appropriate. The agencies' comments and our responses are summarized
below.
* In e-mail comments from the Federal Chief Information Officer, OMB
generally agreed with three of our recommendations and disagreed with
three. Specifically, OMB agreed with the recommendation to require
agencies to disclose limitations their CIOs might have in exercising
the authorities and responsibilities provided by law and OMB guidance
but stated that it had already addressed this issue as part of its
fiscal year 2013 PortfolioStat process. Specifically, according to
OMB, its fiscal year 2013 PortfolioStat guidance[Footnote 52] required
agencies to describe how their policies, procedures, and authorities
implement CIO authorities, consistent with OMB Memorandum 11-29, as
part of either the information resources management plan or enterprise
roadmap they were instructed to submit. OMB stated that it reviewed
and analyzed agencies' responses and discussed limitations to CIOs'
authorities directly with agencies during the PortfolioStat sessions
in cases where it determined that such limitations existed. However,
OMB did not provide documentation supporting its reviews or
discussions with agencies. In addition, as we note in our report,
requiring agencies to fully disclose limitations their CIOs may have
in exercising the authorities and responsibilities provided by law and
OMB guidance should provide OMB information crucial to understanding
and addressing the factors that could prevent agencies from
successfully implementing the PortfolioStat initiative. For these
reasons, we are maintaining our recommendation.
OMB stated that it agreed with our recommendation to require that
agencies (1) state what actions have been taken to ensure the
completeness of their commodity IT baseline information and (2)
identify any limitations with this information as part of the
integrated data collection quarterly reporting. It acknowledged the
value in ensuring the completeness and in understanding the
limitations of agency-produced artifacts and stated it would continue
to dedicate resources to validating agency savings associated with
federal IT reform efforts prior to presenting these savings to
Congress. OMB also stated that it would modify its analytical process
to cite these limitations when producing PortfolioStat reports in the
future.
OMB generally agreed with the recommendation to require agencies to
report on the progress of the two consolidation efforts they were to
complete by December 2012 and stated that, to the extent feasible, it
would dedicate resources to analyzing this information.
OMB disagreed with our recommendation to disclose the limitations of
any data reported on the agencies' consolidation efforts and
associated cost savings and avoidance, stating that it had disclosed
limitations on data reported and citing three instances of these
efforts. While we acknowledge that OMB reported limitations of data
regarding consolidation efforts in these cases, the information
reported did not provide stakeholders and the public with a complete
understanding of the information presented. For example, OMB did not
disclose that information from the departments of Defense and Justice
was not included in the consolidation estimates reported, which,
considering the scope of Defense's efforts in this area (at least $3.2
billion), is a major gap. As noted in our report, OMB's disclosure of
limitations of or qualifications to the data it reports would provide
the public and other stakeholders with crucial information needed to
understand the status of PortfolioStat and agency progress in meeting
the goals of the initiative. Therefore, we stand by our recommendation.
OMB also disagreed with our recommendation to require agencies to
report on efforts to address action plan elements as part of future
OMB reporting, stating that it had found that 24 of 26 agencies had
completed their plans. OMB further stated that it continuously follows
up on the consolidation efforts identified in the plans and, where
savings have been identified, reports this progress to Congress on a
quarterly basis. However, our review of the 26 agency action plans
found 26 instances where a required element (e.g., consolidation of
commodity IT spending under the CIO) was not addressed and 26
instances where a required element was only partially addressed--an
assessment with which agencies agreed. As noted in our report,
addressing all the required elements would better position agencies to
fully realize the intended benefits of the PortfolioStat initiative,
and they should therefore be held accountable for reporting on them as
required in OMB memo M-12-10. Accordingly, we stand by our
recommendation.
Finally, OMB disagreed with our recommendation to improve transparency
and accountability for PortfolioStat by disclosing consolidation
efforts and related cost savings by agency. Specifically, OMB stated
that this recommendation does not adequately account for the work it
currently performs to ensure accountability for and transparency of
the process through its quarterly reporting of identified savings to
Congress. It further stated that some details are deliberative or
procurement sensitive and it would therefore not be appropriate to
disclose them. However, while OMB currently reports realized savings
by agency on a quarterly basis, these savings are not measured against
planned savings. Doing this would greatly enhance Congress's insight
into agencies' progress and hold them accountable for reducing
duplication and achieving planned cost savings and would not require
reporting deliberative or procurement-sensitive information.
Therefore, we stand by our recommendation.
* In written comments, the U.S. Department of Agriculture concurred
with the content of our report. The department's comments are
reprinted in appendix V.
* In written comments, the Department of Commerce concurred with our
recommendations but disagreed with our statement that the CIO only has
explicit authority over major IT investments. Commerce cited a June
21, 2012, departmental memo on IT portfolio management that it
believes provides the CIO with explicit authority to review any IT
investment, whether major or non-major. Our statement regarding the
limitations on the CIO's authority was based on information reported
by the department to OMB in May 2012 and confirmed with officials from
the Commerce Office of the CIO during the course of our review.
However, we agree that the June 2012 memo provides the CIO with
explicit authority to review all IT investments. Accordingly, we have
removed the original statement noting limitations from the report and
also removed Commerce from the list of departments OMB should require
to disclose CIO limitations. The Department of Commerce's comments are
reprinted in appendix VI.
* In its written response, the Department of Defense provided comments
for both the department and the Army Corps of Engineers. It concurred
with one of the three recommendations made to Defense, partially
concurred with another and disagreed with the third. Specifically, the
department concurred with our recommendation to obtain support from
the relevant component agencies for the estimated savings for fiscal
years 2013 to 2015 for the data center consolidation, enterprise
software purchasing, and General Fund Enterprise Business System
initiatives. It partially concurred with our recommendation to develop
a complete commodity baseline, stating that the department has efforts
under way to further refine the baseline. Since these efforts have not
yet been completed, we are maintaining our recommendation. The
department did not concur with our recommendation to fully describe
the consolidation of commodity IT spending under the CIO in future OMB
reporting. The department stated that it did not intend to follow
OMB's guidance to consolidate commodity IT spending under the CIO
because this approach would not work within the department's federated
management process. However, our recommendation was not to implement
OMB's guidance, but rather to address the element in the plan as
required by either describing the steps it will take to implement it
or explaining why it will not or cannot implement it. DOD did neither
of these and instead was silent on the subject. We therefore stand by
our recommendation. The department concurred with both of the
recommendations we made to the Army Corps of Engineers. The
department's comments are reprinted in appendix VII.
* In written comments, the Department of Energy concurred with our
recommendation to fully describe PortfolioStat action plan elements in
future OMB reporting and stated that the department was committed to
increasing the CIO's oversight and authority for federal commodity IT
investments. The department also noted that our statement that the
"department has no direct authority over IT investments in two semi-
autonomous agencies (the National Nuclear Security Administration and
the Energy Information Administration)" should be clarified to say
that it is the department CIO who does not have this authority. We
found support for this clarification in documentation we had already
received and therefore made it as requested. The department's comments
are reprinted in appendix VIII.
* In written comments, the Environmental Protection Agency generally
agreed with two of the three recommendations we made and generally
disagreed with the third. Specifically, the Environmental Protection
Agency generally agreed with our recommendations to (1) fully describe
three PortfolioStat action plan elements and (2) report on the
agency's progress in consolidating the managed print services and
strategic sourcing of end user computing to shared services as part of
the OMB integrated data collection quarterly reporting until
completed. The agency disagreed with our recommendation to develop a
complete commodity IT baseline, stating that it had provided a
complete baseline to OMB on August 31, 2012, and had also reported to
us during our review that the information was current and complete at
the time of submission. During our review, we found that the
Environmental Protection Agency did not have a process in place to
ensure the completeness of the information in the baseline. Without
appropriate controls and processes in place to confirm this, the
Environmental Protection Agency cannot be assured that its data are
complete. We therefore stand by our recommendation. The Environmental
Protection Agency's comments are reprinted in appendix IX.
* In written comments, the General Services Administration agreed with
our findings and recommendations and stated it would take action as
appropriate. The agency's comments are reprinted in appendix X.
* In written comments, the Department of Homeland Security disagreed
with our recommendation to fully describe its efforts related to
consolidating commodity IT spending under the CIO in future OMB
reporting, stating that the department had already addressed this
recommendation. Specifically, the department stated that it had
included updated information on this topic in its fiscal year 2013
Information Resources Management Plan that was submitted to OMB in May
2013. We reviewed the Information Resources Management Plan and agree
that it addresses our recommendation. We therefore removed the
recommendation from the report. The department's comments are
reprinted in appendix XI.
* In written comments, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
concurred with our recommendations and stated it would provide more
definitive information with timelines once the final report had been
issued. The department's comments are reprinted in appendix XII.
* In e-mail comments, the Department of the Interior's GAO Audit
Liaison stated that the department generally concurred with our
findings and recommendations. However, the department recommended
revising the criteria we used to assess whether agencies met the
requirement to develop a commodity IT baseline (depicted in table 1)
to reflect whether or not an agency had developed a baseline instead
of whether that baseline was complete. The department stated that a
validation was not being performed on how all agencies responded to
the question and agencies that answered truthfully were being
penalized for responding honestly. We recognize that agencies were not
required to report on the completeness of the commodity IT baseline
information they submitted to OMB; for this reason, we have
recommended that OMB require agencies to state what actions have been
taken to ensure the completeness of their commodity IT baseline
information and identify any limitations with this information as part
of the integrated data collection quarterly reporting.
* In e-mail comments, an official from the Department of Justice's
Audit Liaison Group stated that all references to the department were
factually correct.
* In written comments, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration concurred with our recommendations and noted the agency
will take actions to address them. The agency's comments are reprinted
in appendix XIII.
* In written comments, the National Archives and Records
Administration concurred with our recommendation and stated that it
would include updated or new descriptions of the elements of the
PortfolioStat action plan in future OMB reporting. The agency's
comments are reprinted in appendix XIV.
* In written comments, the National Science Foundation stated that it
generally agreed with our characterization of the agency's
PortfolioStat status and would update its PortfolioStat action plan as
appropriate to more fully describe the two elements that we noted were
not fully addressed. Regarding our recommendation to complete the
consolidation of e-mail services to shared services, the agency stated
that this effort was completed in August 2013. After reviewing
additional documentation provided, we agree that the agency has met
the requirement. We modified the report as appropriate, and removed
the recommendation. The National Science Foundation's comments are
reprinted in appendix XV.
* In e-mail comments, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's GAO
Audit Liaison stated that the agency was generally in agreement with
our report.
* In written comments, the Office of Personnel Management concurred
with our recommendations and noted that the agency will provide
updated information on efforts to address them to OMB on November 30,
2013. The agency's comments are reprinted in appendix XVI.
* In written comments, the Social Security Administration agreed with
one recommendation and disagreed with the other. The agency disagreed
with our recommendation to develop a complete commodity IT baseline,
stating that it believed its commodity baseline data to be complete
and accurate. However, our review found that the Social Security
Administration did not have a process in place to ensure the
completeness of the information in the baseline. Without appropriate
controls and processes in place to confirm the completeness of data,
the Social Security Administration cannot be assured that its data are
complete. The agency also acknowledged that it needed to document a
process for demonstrating the completeness of its baseline data.
Consequently, we stand by our recommendation. The Social Security
Administration's comments are reprinted in appendix XVII.
* In written comments, the Department of State stated that it
concurred with our report and would develop specific responses to each
of the three recommendations we made once the report is published.
However, related to our recommendation to complete the consolidation
of the Foreign Affairs Network and content publishing and delivery
services, the department stated that it has already consolidated more
than two commodity IT areas per OMB Memorandum M-11-29. While we
acknowledge that it has made efforts in this area, during our review
the department changed what it considered the two commodity areas to
be consolidated by December 2012 several times before stating that the
two efforts were the Foreign Affairs Network and content publishing
and delivery services. Based on this determination, we assessed the
status of these two efforts and confirmed that neither had been
completed as of August 2013. In addition, the department did not
provide any documentation to support that it had consolidated more
than two commodity IT areas. We therefore stand by our recommendation.
The Department of State's comments are reprinted in appendix XVIII.
* In written comments, the Department of Veterans Affairs concurred
with our four recommendations, stating the department is taking steps
to manage its investment portfolio more effectively and has developed
an action plan to address each recommendation. The department's
comments are reprinted in appendix XIX.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the
secretaries and agency heads of the departments and agencies addressed
in this report, and other interested parties. In addition, the report
will be available at no charge on GAO's website at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions on the matters discussed in
this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who
made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix XX.
Signed by:
David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to (1) determine the status of efforts to
implement key required PortfolioStat actions, (2) evaluate selected
agencies' plans for making portfolio improvements and achieving
associated cost savings, and (3) evaluate Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) plans to improve the PortfolioStat process.
To determine the status of agency efforts to implement key
PortfolioStat actions, we obtained and analyzed policies, action
plans, PortfolioStat briefing slides, status reports, agency
communications to OMB, and other documentation relative to the key
requirements of the Portfolio initiative outlined in OMB's 2012
memorandum[Footnote 53] from each of the 26 federal agencies in our
review.[Footnote 54] These requirements included (1) designating a
lead for the initiative; (2) completing a high-level IT portfolio
survey; (3) establishing a commodity IT baseline; (4) holding a
PortfolioStat session; (5) submitting a final plan to consolidate
commodity IT; (6) migrating at least two duplicative commodity IT
services by December 31, 2012; (7) and documenting lessons learned.
For the final plan to consolidate commodity IT, we reviewed agency
plans to determine whether each element required in the plan was fully
addressed. A "partially" rating was given if the plan addressed a
portion but not all of the information required in the element. In
addition, we obtained a briefing book which OMB provided to the
agencies that, among other things, summarized the agencies' commodity
IT baseline data. We assessed the reliability of OMB's reporting of
these data through interviews with OMB officials regarding their
processes for compiling the briefing books and used the briefing books
to describe the federal investment in commodity IT at the time of the
2012 PortfolioStat. We also assessed the reliability of agencies'
commodity IT baseline data by reviewing the processes agencies
described they had in place to ensure that all investments were
captured in the baseline. We identified issues with the reliability of
the agencies' commodity IT baseline data and have highlighted these
issues throughout this report, as appropriate.
For objective two, we selected five agencies with (1) high fiscal year
IT expenditure levels (based on information reported on the OMB's IT
dashboard); (2) a mix of varying IT and CIO organizational structures
(centralized vs. decentralized); and (3) a range of investment
management maturity levels based on knowledge gathered from prior work
and reported results of PortfolioStat sessions. In addition, to the
extent possible, we avoided selecting projects that were the subject
of another engagement underway. The agencies selected are the
Departments of Agriculture, Defense, the Interior, the Treasury, and
Veterans Affairs. To evaluate the selected agencies' plans for making
portfolio improvements and achieving associated cost savings, we
obtained and analyzed agencies' action plans to consolidate commodity
IT, and other relevant documentation, and interviewed relevant agency
officials to compile a list of planned portfolio improvements and
determine the processes agencies used to identify these portfolio
improvements. We determined the extent to which these processes
included using (1) the agency enterprise architecture and (2) a
valuation model, which OMB recommended in its guidance to assist in
analyzing portfolio information and developing action plans. In
addition, we assessed the reliability of the cost savings and
avoidance estimates by obtaining and analyzing the support for the
estimates for the two efforts that were to be migrated by December
2012 and the two efforts with the highest anticipated savings between
fiscal years 2013 and 2015. Based on the results of our analysis, we
found the data to be sufficiently reliable given the way they are
reported herein.
To evaluate OMB's plans for making PortfolioStat improvements, we
reviewed PortfolioStat guidance for fiscal year 2013[Footnote 55] and
interviewed OMB officials to compile a list of planned improvements.
In addition, we analyzed the information obtained from our sources and
the results of our analyses for our first two objectives to determine
whether OMB's plans for improving PortfolioStat addressed the issues
we identified.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 to November 2013
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Agencies' Commodity IT Migration Efforts:
The table below lists the commodity IT efforts for migration to shared
services agencies identified in their action plan.
Agency: Agriculture;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Cellular Phone Contract
Consolidation.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Enterprise Contracts for
Standardized Security Products and Services Plan.
Agency: Commerce;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Cyber Security Assessment
and Management Re-host at the Department of Justice.
Efforts for migration to shared services: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Consolidated National Service Desk.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Endpoint Security Blanket
Purchase Agreement.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Shared Services Freedom of
Information Act Module Portal.
Agency: Defense;
Efforts for migration to shared services: The Unclassified Information
Sharing Service/All Partner Access Network.
Efforts for migration to shared services: The General Fund Enterprise
Business System.
Agency: Education;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Information Collection
Request, Review and Approval System.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Kronos Time & Attendance.
Agency: Energy;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Electronic Capital Planning
and Investment Control (eCPIC) Migration to General Services
Administration Cloud Environment.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Energy Services Online Pilot
Implementation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Managed print services.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Strategic sourcing of end
user computing.
Agency: General Services Administration;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Insite.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Contract writing module.
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Healthdata.gov Services.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Information Collection
Request, Review and Approval Services.
Agency: Homeland Security;
Efforts for migration to shared services: WorkPlace as a Service.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Case and Relationship
Management as a Service.
Agency: Housing and Urban Development;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Human Resource End to End
Solution.
Efforts for migration to shared services: MicroStrategy Enterprise
Licensing/Business Intelligence.
Agency: Interior;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Financial and Business
Management System deployment 7.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Enterprise Forms System.
Agency: Justice;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Wireless.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Land Mobile Radio System
Consolidation.
Agency: Labor;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Cloud e-mail.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Web-based collaboration tool.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Efforts for migration to shared services: NASA Integrated
Communications Services Consolidated Configuration Management System.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Consolidation of Adobe
Lifecycle Reader Extension Service.
Agency: National Archives and Records Administration;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Moving website and census
data to shared service provider.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Moving e-mail to shared
services.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Email to cloud.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Web Time & Attendance.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Workforce Tracking
Transformation system.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Entrance on Duty System.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Help Desk consolidation.
Efforts for migration to shared services: IT asset inventory.
Agency: Small Business Administration;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Electronic Capital Planning
and Investment Control (eCPIC) Portfolio Management tool (FESCOM
Program Participant).
Efforts for migration to shared services: FDOnline.
Agency: Social Security Administration;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Enterprise social media.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Geospatial architecture.
Agency: State;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Foreign Affairs Network.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Content publishing and
delivery services.
Agency: Transportation;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Enterprise Messaging.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Systems and Managed Print
Services and Multi-function printer devices.
Agency: Treasury;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Internet Payment Platform.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Do Not Pay.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Google/Email.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Telecommunications and
Computer Operations Center.
Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Electronic Capital Planning
and Investment Control (eCPIC).
Efforts for migration to shared services: USACE Learning Network.
Agency: Veterans Affairs;
Efforts for migration to shared services: Server Virtualization.
Efforts for migration to shared services: Eliminate Dedicated Fax
Servers Consolidation.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Agencies' Portfolio Initiatives:
The table below lists the commodity IT initiatives that agencies
identified in the cost target templates provided to OMB in September
2012.
Dollars in millions (rounded):
Agriculture:
Initiative: Infrastructure Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $61.10;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $64.80;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $78.30;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $204.20.
Initiative: Tier 1 Help Desk;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.21;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.21;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.21;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.63.
Initiative: Geo Spatial Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $10.53;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $20.60;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $30.03;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $61.16.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $72.84;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $86.61;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $109.54;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $268.99.
Initiative: Commerce:
Initiative: Desktop/Laptop Management;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.20;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.20;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.20;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.60.
Initiative: Several Data Center Consolidation Activities;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.40;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $29.30;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $34.70.
Initiative: Reduce total number of computers, use Commerce PC purchase
contract to get discount;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.38;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.38;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.38;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.14.
Initiative: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National
Service Desk;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.80;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.80;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.80;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.40.
Initiative: Enterprise-Wide IT Security Assessment and Authorization;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.80;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.80;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.80;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.40.
Initiative: Human Resources Management System;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.01;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.02;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.63;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $15.66.
Initiative: National Institute of Standards and Technology Cloud
Initiatives;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Voice over Internet Protocol;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.90;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.90.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $8.19;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $16.60;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $43.01;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $67.80.
Defense[B]:
Initiative: Branch Services Consolidation of Commodity IT Components
and Applications;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.[A];
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Mobile Device Strategy;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Next Generation End User Devices;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Multi-level Security Domain Thin Client Solutions;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Defense Enterprise Software Initiative;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Consolidation Procurement of Commodity IT Hardware
Purchases;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Green IT;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Unclassified Information Sharing Service/All Partner
Access Network;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Consolidate Security Infrastructure;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Consolidate NetOps Centers;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Implement Cross Domain Solution as Enterprise Service;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Extended Joint Networks Over Satellite Communications;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Video Over Internet Protocol Enterprise Service;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Joint Enterprise Network;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Defense Red Switch Network Rationalization;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Data Center Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Computing Infrastructure and Services Optimization;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Cloud Computing;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Service Desk Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Enterprise Messaging and Collaboration Services;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Identify and Access Management Services;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Enterprises Services - Identify and Access Management;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Streamline Records Management;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Defense Interoperability with Mission Partners;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: General Fund Enterprise Business System;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Common Business Process Foundation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3,200.00 - $5,300.00.
Education:
Initiative: Information Collection Request, Review and Approval System;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.15;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.15;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.15;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.45.
Initiative: Kronos Time & Attendance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.56;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.33;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.33;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.22.
Initiative: ABLEDATA;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.08;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.08.
Initiative: cVent Event Solutions;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.01;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.01;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.02.
Initiative: Fund for the Improvement of PostSecondary Education
Dissemination and Grants Database;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.08.
Initiative: Improving Program Performance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.08.
Initiative: Literacy Information and Communication System Technical
Services;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.11;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.11;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.11;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.32.
Initiative: Migrant Student Information Exchange;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.36;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.37;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.37;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.10.
Initiative: National Rehabilitation Information Center;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.02;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.07.
Initiative: Records Exchange Advice, Communication and Technical
Support;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Presidential Scholars Program;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.02;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.02;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.02;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.06.
Initiative: Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Websites;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.01.
Initiative: Doing What Works Website;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.05;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.05;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.05;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.14.
Initiative: Education Pubs;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.10.
Initiative: eService Center;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.01;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.01;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.01;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.04.
Initiative: Office of the Chief Financial Officer Grants Information
Award Database Internet Site;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.01;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.01;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.01;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.02.
Initiative: Enterprise Intranet (connectED);
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.11;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.11;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.11;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.32.
Initiative: Education Web;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.48;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.36;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.36;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.20.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.02;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.63;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.63;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.28.
Energy:
Initiative: Commodity IT Contract Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.12;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.12;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.12;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.35.
Initiative: Utilization of Energy Master Contract;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.07;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.08;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.08;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.23.
Initiative: Enhanced Connectivity for Telework and Travel;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.08.
Initiative: Public Key Infrastructure Migration to Shared Service
Provider;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.90;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.90;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.90;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.70.
Initiative: Email Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.24;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.24;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.24;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.72.
Initiative: Collaboration Tools Consolidation (Microsoft SharePoint);
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.40;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.40;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.60;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.40.
Initiative: IT Security;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.36;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.36;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.72.
Initiative: Document Management Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.15;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.18;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.22;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.55.
Initiative: Migration on-premise Exchange Services into Cloud 365
offering;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.30;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.30;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.60.
Initiative: Energy.gov Renewal Project;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.00.
Initiative: Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center - Commodity IT Full
Time Equivalent Reduction;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.23;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.23;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.46;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.92.
Initiative: Network Infrastructure;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.20;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.20;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.20;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.60.
Initiative: Server and Storage Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.40;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.40;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.40;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.20.
Initiative: eCPIC Migration to General Services Administration Cloud
Environment;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.10;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.13;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.13;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.35.
Initiative: Implement CISCO Unified Communication & Collaboration;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.90;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.30;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.60;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.80.
Initiative: ITSM Replacement of Office of the Chief Information Officer
Remedy systems with ServiceNow;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.48;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.52;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.50.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $8.21;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $10.36;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $12.15;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $30.72.
Environmental Protection Agency:
Initiative: Email (Software as a Service);
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Collaboration Tools (Software as a Service);
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Total reported savings;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
General Services Administration:
Initiative: External Services Branch Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.88;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.96;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.88;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $9.72.
Initiative: Identity Credentials and Access Management;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.40;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.97;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.55;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.92.
Initiative: Insite;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: ($0.16);
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.36;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.36;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.56.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.12;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.29;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $7.79;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $13.20.
Health and Human Services:
Initiative: Human Resources Consolidation and Migration to Shared
Service Provider;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Email Migration to E-mail as a Service Provider;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Homeland Security:
Initiative: Email as a Service;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $18.83;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $48.40;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $48.40;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $115.63.
Initiative: Workplace as a Service;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $73.39;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $153.80;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $153.80;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $380.99.
Initiative: Networx Annual Cost Avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $85.60;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $85.60;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $85.60;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $256.80.
Initiative: Enterprise Licensing Agreements;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $125.33;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $125.33;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $125.33;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $375.99.
Initiative: Wireless;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.00.
Initiative: Homeland Security Data Center Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $24.40;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $24.40;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $24.40;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $73.20.
Initiative: Identify, Credential, and Access Management;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.40;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.40;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.40;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $7.20.
Initiative: Transportation Security Administration Transportation
Threat Assessment and Credentialing/Infrastructure Modernization
Program;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $12.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $12.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $12.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $36.00.
Initiative: Office of the Chief Information Officer/Enterprise System
Development Office - Expected reduction in HQ operational expenditures;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $8.00.
Initiative: Web Content Management as a Service;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $18.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $18.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $36.00.
Initiative: Enterprise Content Delivery as a Service Cost Avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $18.00.
Initiative: SharePoint as a Service;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.16;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.16;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.16;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.48.
Initiative: GeoSpatial (Enterprise IT Services);
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $16.75;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $16.75;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $16.75;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $50.25.
Initiative: Homeland Security Information Network;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.41;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.41;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.41;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.22.
Initiative: Case and Relationship Management as a Service;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $369.27;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $501.25;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $501.25;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1,371.77.
Housing and Urban Development:
Initiative: Human Resource End to End Solution;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.24;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.24;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.23;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.71.
Initiative: Standard Business Intelligence;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.31;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.31;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.31;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.93.
Initiative: Email to the Cloud;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.32;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.32;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.32;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.96.
Initiative: Microsoft Enterprise Software Licensing;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.00.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.87;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.87;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.86;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $8.60.
Interior:
Initiative: Networx;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $7.30;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $7.30;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $7.30;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $21.90.
Initiative: Circuit Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.90;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.90;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.90;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.70.
Initiative: Cloud Email and Collaboration Services;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.52;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.52;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.52;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $13.56.
Initiative: Enterprise eArchive System part of eMail Enterprise Records
and Document Management System;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.80;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.80;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.80;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $11.40.
Initiative: Financial and Business Management System deployment 7&8;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.30;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.13;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.43.
Initiative: Enterprise Forms System;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.30;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.30;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.30;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.90.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $20.12;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $22.95;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $18.82;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $61.89.
Justice[C]:
Initiative: Consolidation of Classified Processing Services;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Consolidating number of email systems;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Human Resource System initiatives;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Web Time and Attendance Cloud Solution;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Wireless contract consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Justice Management Division Mobility-Virtual Private
Network;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Consolidation of Justice Land Mobile Radio Systems;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Monitoring at two security operations centers;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Telecommunications savings initiatives;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Unified
Communications;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Strategic sourcing (contract escalations);
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Network Delivery Order for CISCO services;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: n.d.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $35.00.
Labor:
Initiative: DOLNet Network Infrastructure consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Managed Trusted Internet Protocol Service;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.34;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.67;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.01.
Initiative: E Grants-Related Federal Financial Assistance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Cloud Email;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.40 to $2.70;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.40 to $2.70;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.80 to $5.40.
Initiative: Labor Human Resources Works;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: HR Works Formerly Human Resources Line of Business Shared
Service Center;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.50.
Initiative: Contractor Personnel System;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.75;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.25.
Initiative: New Core Financial Management System;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Web content management and hosting consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.79;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.79.
Initiative: Web content HTML editors;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.75;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.10;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.10;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.95.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.75;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $8.59-$9.89;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $11.96-$13.26;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $22.30-$24.90.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Initiative: Consolidated Corporated Operations Network Center;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.66;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.21;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.87.
Initiative: IT Security;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Collaboration Tools;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Agency Consolidated End User Services;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $18.85;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $19.23;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $19.61;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $57.69.
Initiative: NASA Integrated Communication Services Consolidated
Configuration Management System;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.24;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.99;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.23.
Initiative: Consolidation of Adobe Life Cycle Reader Extension Service;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.17;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.16;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.16;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.49.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $19.02;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $23.29;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $24.97;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $67.29.
National Archives and Records Administration:
Initiative: Human Resources Service Center Migration;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: ($0.02);
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: ($0.02);
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: ($0.02);
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: ($0.06).
Initiative: Web Hosting of the 1940 Decennial Census;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.29;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.29.
Initiative: Web Hosting of Archives.gov;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.20;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.20.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: -$0.02;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: -$0.02;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.47;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.43.
National Science Foundation:
Initiative: Email to Cloud;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.27;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.24;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.24;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.75.
Initiative: Web Time & Attendance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.27;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.24;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.24;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.75.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Initiative: IPiSS PIV Legacy Modernization Savings;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.92;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.92.
Initiative: Security and Forensics Efficiencies;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.34;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.34.
Initiative: Streamline Multiple Web Content Publications through
centralized Web content solution;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.25;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.25.
Initiative: Electronic Information Exchange;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.02;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.02.
Initiative: Data Center Outsourcing;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.06;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.06.
Initiative: Consolidating Video Conferencing;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50.
Initiative: Famis Rehosting/E-Travel new contract;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.42;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.42.
Initiative: HR Management System;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.08;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.08.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $9.60;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $9.60.
Office of Personnel Management:
Initiative: Mobile Device and Service Plan Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.50;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.50.
Initiative: Printer Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.00.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.50;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.50.
Small Business Administration:
Initiative: Data Center migration to shared center;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: SBA Mobility;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.16;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.16;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.31.
Initiative: Learning Management System aka Integrated Talent Management
System = LMS (Learning Management System) + PM (Performance Management)
$265k;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.06;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.09.
Initiative: WFA aka Workforce Analytics or Workforce Planning $535k;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.06;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.03;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.09.
Initiative: eCPIC Portfolio Management Tool (FESCOM Program
Participant);
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.15;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.15;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.30.
Initiative: FDonline;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.43;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.37;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.79.
Social Security Administration:
Initiative: Mainframe hardware and maintenance, TN3270 rollout to the
field;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.68;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.68.
Initiative: SSA workforce consolidation and improvement;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.65;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.65;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.65;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $19.95.
Initiative: Disability Case Processing System implementation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.31;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.55;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.86.
Initiative: Enterprise desktop refresh;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $58.74;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $58.74.
Initiative: Consolidation of Open Systems;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.58;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.58;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.58;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.74.
Initiative: Mainframe hardware and maintenance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $22.35;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $22.35.
Initiative: Software maintenance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $60.84;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $60.84.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $7.23;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $150.15;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $8.78;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $166.16.
State:
Initiative: Strategic Sourcing Initiative;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.00.
Initiative: Global IT Modernization;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.00.
Initiative: Enterprise licensing software;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.00.
Initiative: Printer Managed Service;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $8.00.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $20.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $6.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $26.00.
Transportation:
Initiative: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration SharePoint
Server Migration;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Materials Administration
SharePoint Migration;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.04;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.04.
Initiative: Transportation Common Operating Environment SharePoint
2007 Decommissioning;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.07;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.07.
Initiative: Federal Railroad Administration Correspondence Control
Management System Migration to Departmental Solution;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.08;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.08.
Initiative: Transportation Common Operating Environment SharePoint
2010 Migration to EMS Solution;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50.
Initiative: Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Materials Administration
Migration to Shared Solution;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.09;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.09.
Initiative: National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
Transition to the DOT Common Operating Environment;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.19;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.19.
Initiative: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Migration to
Enterprise Web;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.38;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.38.
Initiative: Transportation Common Operating Environment Legacy
Migration to Cloud;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50.
Initiative: Research and Innovative Technology Administration Web
Deployment in the Cloud;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.10;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.10.
Initiative: Transportation IBM BigFix;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: Federal Highway Administration National Highway Institute
Web Portal & Course Management Consolidation to Reduce IT Security;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.11;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.11.
Initiative: Federal Highway Administration IT Security Process
Improvements;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.54;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.54.
Initiative: Transportation COE Wireless Reinvest in DOT-wide Solution;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.06;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.06.
Initiative: Federal Railroad Administration Mobile Workforce
Initiative Wireless Services;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.17;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.17.
Initiative: Transportation Common Operating Environment Migration from
Current Host Provider;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.24;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.24.
Initiative: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Virtualization
of Server Environment;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.16;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.16.
Initiative: National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
Teleprocessing and Timesharing Services for the National Driver
Register Program Cloud Hosting;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.46;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.46.
Initiative: National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
Common IT Services Transition to Cloud-Based Hosting;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.13;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.13.
Initiative: Transportation Common Operating Environment De-Duplication
Project;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.84;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.85;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.69.
Initiative: Research and Innovative Technology Administration Server
Migration and Consolidation Initiative;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.17;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.40;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.57.
Initiative: Federal Aviation Administration Email;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $13.40;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $12.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $25.40.
Initiative: Transportation Common Operating Environment Email;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.50;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.50.
Initiative: Transportation Headquarters Migration to FAA SAVES MFP
Contract;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: TBD;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.00.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $14.40;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $36.57;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $50.98.
Treasury:
Initiative: Internet Payment Platform;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $25.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $35.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $65.00.
Initiative: DoNotPay;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $19.03;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $42.75;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $66.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $127.78.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $24.03;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $67.75;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $101.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $192.78.
U.S. Agency for International Development:
Initiative: Google/Email;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.17;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.47;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.29;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.93.
Initiative: Single Device;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.10;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.10;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.10;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.31.
Initiative: Telecommunications and Computer Operations Center;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.63;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.13;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.83;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $7.59.
Initiative: Public-facing Website Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.54;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.54;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.54;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $4.62.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.44;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.24;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $8.76;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $17.44.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Initiative: eCPIC;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00.
Initiative: USACE Learning Network;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.50.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.50;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.50.
Veterans Affairs:
Initiative: Server Virtualization;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.42;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.75;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.10;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.28.
Initiative: Eliminate Dedicated Fax Servers Consolidation;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.36;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $9.72;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $45.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $55.08.
Initiative: Microsoft Enterprise Licensing Agreement;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $40.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $40.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $40.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $120.00.
Initiative: Standardize Spend Planning and Consolidation Contracts;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.23;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.24;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.12;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $2.59.
Initiative: Vants Via Voice Over Internet Protocol;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.60;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1.80;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $3.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.40.
Initiative: Vista Data Feeds;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.00;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.00.
Initiative: One CPU Policy;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.57;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $0.00;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5.57.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance;
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $54.18;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $52.51;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $89.22;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $195.92.
Initiative: Total reported savings and cost avoidance (all
agencies)[D];
Fiscal year 2013 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $610.87;
Fiscal year 2014 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $1,023.84 -
$1,025.14;
Fiscal year 2015 estimated savings or cost avoidance: $954.96 -
$956.26;
Total estimated savings or cost avoidance: $5,824.66 - $7,927.26.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[A] Defense did not provide information on the number of opportunities
or potential cost savings to OMB in the cost target template. The
information was obtained from the department's final action plan and
other referenced documentation. Defense reported savings for fiscal
years 2012-2015 and did not break down cost savings by initiative.
[B] n.d.--no data.
[C] Justice did not provide information on the number of opportunities
or potential cost savings to OMB in the cost target template. The
information was obtained from the department's final action plan.
Justice reported savings for fiscal year 2015 and did not break down
cost savings by initiative.
[D] Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Recommendations to Departments and Agencies:
Agriculture:
To improve the department's implementation of PortfolioStat, we
recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the CIO to take the
following four actions:
* Develop a complete commodity IT baseline.
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat Action plan elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT
spending under the agency CIO and (2) establish criteria for wasteful,
low-value, or duplicative investments.
* As the department finalizes and matures its valuation methodology,
utilize this process to identify whether there are additional
opportunities to reduce duplicative, low-value, or wasteful
investments.
* Develop support for the estimated savings for fiscal years 2013
through 2015 for the Cellular Phone Contract Consolidation, IT
Infrastructure Consolidation/Enterprise Data Center Consolidation, and
Geospatial Consolidation initiatives.
Commerce:
To improve the department's implementation of PortfolioStat, we
recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the CIO to take the
following two actions:
* Reflect 100 percent of information technology investments in the
department's enterprise architecture.
* Develop a complete commodity IT baseline.
Defense:
To improve the department's implementation of PortfolioStat, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the CIO to take the
following three actions:
* Develop a complete commodity IT baseline.
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan element: consolidate commodity IT spending
under the agency CIO.
* Obtain support from the relevant component agencies for the
estimated savings for fiscal years 2013 to 2015 for the data center
consolidation, enterprise software purchasing, and General Fund
Enterprise Business System initiatives.
In addition, to improve the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
implementation of PortfolioStat, we recommend that the Secretary of
Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to take the following two
actions:
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT
spending under the agency CIO; (2) target duplicative systems or
contracts that support common business functions for consolidation;
(3) establish criteria for identifying wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments; and (4) establish a process to identify these
potential investments and a schedule for eliminating them from the
portfolio.
* Report on the agency's progress in consolidating eCPIC to a shared
service as part of the OMB integrated data collection quarterly
reporting until completed.
Energy:
To improve the department's implementation of PortfolioStat, we
recommend that the Secretary of Energy direct the CIO to take the
following action:
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT
spending under the agency CIO and (2) establish criteria for
identifying wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments.
Environmental Protection Agency:
To improve the agency's implementation of PortfolioStat, we recommend
that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency direct
the CIO to take the following three actions:
* Develop a complete commodity IT baseline.
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT
spending under the agency CIO; (2) establish targets for commodity IT
spending reductions and deadlines for meeting those targets; and (3)
establish criteria for identifying wasteful, low-value, or duplicative
investments.
* Report on the agency's progress in consolidating the managed print
services and strategic sourcing of end user computing to shared
services as part of the OMB integrated data collection quarterly
reporting until completed.
General Services Administration:
To improve the agency's implementation of PortfolioStat, we recommend
that the Administrator of the General Services Administration direct
the CIO to take the following action:
* Report on the agency's progress in consolidating the contract
writing module to a shared service as part of the OMB integrated data
collection quarterly reporting until completed.
Health and Human Services:
To improve the department's implementation of PortfolioStat, we
recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services direct the
CIO to take the following action:
* In future OMB reporting, fully describe the following PortfolioStat
action plan element: consolidate commodity IT spending under the
agency CIO.
Housing and Urban Development:
To improve the department's implementation of PortfolioStat, we
recommend that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development direct
the CIO to take the following three actions:
* Develop a complete commodity IT baseline.
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan element: establish criteria for identifying
wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments.
* Report on the department's progress in consolidating the HR End-to-
End Performance Management Module to a shared service as part of the
OMB integrated data collection quarterly reporting until completed.
Interior:
To improve the department's implementation of PortfolioStat, we
recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the CIO to take
the following three actions:
* Develop a complete commodity IT baseline.
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan element: establish criteria for identifying
wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments.
* Report on the department's progress in consolidating the Electronic
Forms System component of the eMail Enterprise Records & Document
Management System deployment 8 to a shared service as part of the OMB
integrated data collection quarterly reporting until completed.
Justice:
To improve the department's implementation of PortfolioStat, we
recommend that the Attorney General direct the CIO to take the
following two actions:
* Reflect 100 percent of information technology investments in the
department's enterprise architecture.
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan element: establish targets for commodity IT
spending reductions and deadlines for meeting those targets.
Labor:
To improve the department's implementation of PortfolioStat, we
recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct the CIO to take the
following three actions:
* Develop a complete commodity IT baseline.
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT
spending under the agency CIO and (2) establish targets for commodity
IT spending reductions and deadlines for meeting those targets.
* Report on the department's progress in consolidating the cloud e-
mail services to a shared service as part of the OMB integrated data
collection quarterly reporting until completed.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
To improve the agency's implementation of PortfolioStat, we recommend
that the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration direct the CIO to take the following three actions:
* Reflect 100 percent of information technology investments in the
agency's enterprise architecture.
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT
spending under the agency CIO; (2) target duplicative systems or
contracts that support common business functions for consolidation;
(3) establish criteria for identifying wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments; and (4) establish a process to identify these
potential investments and a schedule for eliminating them from the
portfolio.
* Report on the agency's progress in consolidating the NASA Integrated
Communications Services Consolidated Configuration Management System
to a shared service as part of the OMB integrated data collection
quarterly reporting until completed.
National Archives and Records Administration:
To improve the agency's implementation of PortfolioStat, we recommend
that the Archivist of the United States direct the CIO to take the
following action:
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT
spending under the agency CIO; (2) target duplicative systems or
contracts that support common business functions for consolidation;
(3) establish criteria for identifying wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments; and (4) establish a process to identify these
potential investments and a schedule for eliminating them from the
portfolio.
National Science Foundation:
To improve the agency's implementation of PortfolioStat, we recommend
that the Director of the National Science Foundation direct the CIO to
take the following action:
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT
spending under the agency CIO and (2) establish criteria for
identifying wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
To improve the agency's implementation of PortfolioStat, we recommend
that the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission direct the
CIO to take the following two actions:
* Develop a complete commodity IT baseline.
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT
spending under the agency CIO; (2) establish targets for commodity IT
spending reductions and deadlines for meeting those targets; (3)
target duplicative systems or contracts that support common business
functions for consolidation; and (4) establish a process to identify
these potential investments and a schedule for eliminating them from
the portfolio.
Office of Personnel Management:
To improve the agency's implementation of PortfolioStat, we recommend
that the Director of the Office of Personnel Management direct the CIO
to take the following three actions:
* Develop a complete commodity IT baseline.
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1) move at least two commodity IT
areas to shared services and (2) target duplicative systems or
contracts that support common business functions for consolidation.
* Report on the agency's progress in consolidating the help desk
consolidation and IT asset inventory to shared services as part of the
OMB integrated data collection quarterly reporting until completed.
Small Business Administration:
To improve the agency's implementation of PortfolioStat, we recommend
that the Administrator of the Small Business Administration direct the
CIO to take the following two actions:
* Develop a complete commodity IT baseline.
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT
spending under the agency CIO; (2) establish targets for commodity IT
spending reductions and deadlines for meeting those targets; (3)
target duplicative systems or contracts that support common business
functions for consolidation; and (4) establish a process to identify
those potential investments and a schedule for eliminating them from
the portfolio.
Social Security Administration:
To improve the agency's implementation of PortfolioStat, we recommend
that the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration direct the
CIO to take the following two actions:
* Develop a complete commodity IT baseline.
* Report on the agency's progress in consolidating the geospatial
architecture to a shared service as part of the OMB integrated data
collection quarterly reporting until completed.
State:
To improve the department's implementation of PortfolioStat, we
recommend that the Secretary of State direct the CIO to take the
following three actions:
* Reflect 100 percent of information technology investments in the
department's enterprise architecture.
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT
spending under the agency CIO; (2) establish targets for commodity IT
spending reductions and deadlines for meeting those targets; (3) move
at least two commodity IT areas to shared services; (4) target
duplicative systems or contracts that support common business
functions for consolidation; and (5) establish a process to identify
those potential investments and a schedule for eliminating them from
the portfolio.
* Report on the department's progress in consolidating the Foreign
Affairs Network and content publishing and delivery services to shared
services as part of the OMB integrated data collection quarterly
reporting until completed.
Transportation:
To improve the department's implementation of PortfolioStat, we
recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the CIO to take
the following two actions:
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT
spending under the agency CIO; (2) establish targets for commodity IT
spending reductions and deadlines for meeting those targets; (3)
target duplicative systems or contracts that support common business
functions for consolidation; and (4) establish a process to identify
those potential investments and a schedule for eliminating them from
the portfolio.
* Report on the department's progress in consolidating the Enterprise
Messaging to shared services as part of the OMB integrated data
collection quarterly reporting until completed.
Treasury:
To improve the department's implementation of PortfolioStat, we
recommend that the Secretary of the Treasury direct the CIO to take
the following three actions:
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT
spending under the agency CIO and (2) establish criteria for
identifying wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments.
* As the department finalizes and matures its enterprise architecture
and valuation methodology, utilize these processes to identify whether
there are additional opportunities to reduce duplicative, low-value,
or wasteful investments.
* Develop support for the estimated savings for fiscal years 2013 to
2015 for the DoNotPay Business Center, Fiscal IT Data Center
Consolidation and Business Process Management Status initiatives.
U.S. Agency for International Development:
To improve the agency's implementation of PortfolioStat, we recommend
that the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International
Development direct the CIO to take the following four actions:
* Reflect 100 percent of information technology investments in the
agency's enterprise architecture.
* Develop a complete commodity IT baseline.
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1) target duplicative systems or
contracts that support common business functions for consolidation and
(2) establish a process to identify those potential investments and a
schedule for eliminating them from the portfolio.
* Report on the agency's progress in consolidating the e-mail and
Telecommunication and Operations Center to shared services as part of
the OMB integrated data collection quarterly reporting until completed.
Veterans Affairs:
To improve the department's implementation of PortfolioStat, we
recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the CIO to
take the following four actions:
* In future reporting to OMB, fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan element: target duplicative systems or
contracts that support common business functions for consolidation.
* Report on the department's progress in consolidating the dedicated
fax servers to a shared service as part of the OMB integrated data
collection quarterly reporting until completed.
* As the department matures its enterprise architecture process, make
use of it, as well as the valuation model, to identify whether there
are additional opportunities to reduce duplicative, low-value, or
wasteful investments.
* Develop detailed support for the estimated savings for fiscal years
2013 to 2015 for the Server Virtualization, Eliminate Dedicated Fax
Servers Consolidation, Renegotiate Microsoft Enterprise License
Agreement, and one CPU policy initiatives.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
United States Department of Agriculture:
USDA:
Departmental Management:
Office of the Chief Information Officer:
1400 Independence Avenue S.W.
Washington, DC 20250:
September 19, 2013:
David Powner:
Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N. W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has reviewed the draft report GAO-
Draft Report GAO-14-65, October 2013.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report. We
concur with the content of the report and have no comments.
For additional information, please contact Christopher Wren, Office of
the Chief Information Officer's audit liaison, at 202-260-0771.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Cheryl L. Cook:
Chief Information Officer:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
The Deputy Secretary of Commerce:
Washington. D.C. 20230:
September 25,2013:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report from the
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) titled "Information
Technology: Additional OMB and Agency Actions Are Needed to Achieve
Portfolio Savings" (GAO-14-65).
The Department of Commerce embraces the PortfolioStat initiative and
we believe we have made significant strides to implement all the key
provisions of both PortfolioStat 2012 and PortfolioStat 2013. Below
are our comments regarding those areas within the draft report that
relate specifically to the Commerce Department.
On page 11, the draft report states, "The Department of Commerce
reported that its CIO only has explicit authority over major IT
investments." We feel this to be an incorrect characterization of the
authorities held by the Commerce CIa. On June 21, 2012, the Acting
Secretary of Commerce issued a memorandum promulgating the
Department's IT Portfolio Management Policy. That Policy states the
following:
While funding generally resides with the Operating Units, pursuant to
the CIO's oversight responsibilities, the CIO shall have discretion to
review and approve IT investments and acquisitions during budget
formulation and program execution.
The CIO shall establish IT investment and/or acquisition review
authorities (based on criteria that may include initial cost, annual
cost, total lifecycle cost). Any DOC IT investment and/or acquisition
that exceeds these thresholds shall be subject to review by the CIO
via the Commerce IT Review Board (CITRB) or other mechanism identified
by the CIO and/or the Chief Acquisition Officer.
We feel there is nothing within the Acting Secretary's memorandum that
restricts the CIO's authority to review and oversee major IT
investments, and the authority to review any IT investment, whether
major or nonmajor, is explicit in the memorandum.
We concur with the observation on page 13 of the draft report that 90
percent of Commerce's IT investments are reflected in the enterprise
architecture.
We concur with the comment on page 16 of the draft report that
Commerce could not ensure the completeness of our commodity IT
baseline at the time the GAO conducted its study. Since then, however,
we have established a significantly improved commodity IT baseline
that is considerably more comprehensive, per the requirements
established through the 2013 PortfolioStat process. The 2013
PortfolioStat process used for the compilation of this revised
baseline (1) was developed by OMB, (2) includes a broader set of IT
commodities than did our previous one, and (3) has been uniformly
applied across the 26 agencies required to comply with OMB's memo for
implementing the PortfolioStat initiative.
We concur with the portion of the "Recommendations to Departments and
Agencies" on page 56 of the draft report, recommending that Commerce
(1) reflect 100 percent of information technology investments in the
department's enterprise architecture and (2) develop a complete
commodity IT baseline.
Please contact Jerry Harper, Director, Office of IT Policy and
Planning, at 202-482-0222 if you have questions regarding this
response.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Patrick Gallagher:
Acting Deputy Secretary of Commerce:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Department Of Defense:
Chief Information Officer:
6000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-6000:
September 27, 2013:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner,
This is the Department of Defense response to the GAO Draft Report,
GAO-14-65, "Information Technology: Additional OMB and Agency Actions
are needed to Achieve Portfolio Savings," dated August 29, 2013 (GAO
Code 311280).
Our comments to the draft report are attached. My point of contact is
Mr. Kevin Garrison, 571-372-4473, kevin.garrisonl.civ@mail.mil.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David L. DeVries:
Deputy Chief Information Officer for Information Enterprise:
Attachment: As stated:
GAO Draft Report Dated August 29,2013:
GAO-14-65 (GAO Code 311280):
"Information Technology: Additional OMB and Agency Actions are Needed to
Achieve Portfolio Savings"
Department of Defense Comments to the GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: To improve the department's implementation of
PortfolioStat, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the
CIO to take the following action: Develop a complete commodity IT
baseline.
DoD Response: DoD partially concurs with this recommendation. DoD has
efforts underway, including the Joint Information Environment, to
further refine the Department's commodity IT baseline.
Recommendation 2: To improve the department's implementation of
Portfolio Stat, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the
CIO to take the following action: Fully describe the following
PortfolioStat action plan element, consolidate commodity IT spending
under the agency CIO, in future OMB reporting.
DoD Response: DoD does not concur with this recommendation. The
commodity IT construct OMB has implemented in PortfolioStat does not
work within current federated management processes of the DoD. The
Department operates as a decentralized organization, and its federated
decentralized approach is the same approach used for all major
decision-making processes within the Department. The DoD CIO has
integrated and balanced the authorities outlined in M-11-29 and
legislative requirements contained in Title 10, Title 40 and Title 44 to
achieve improved IT operating efficiencies and organizational decision-
making agility.
The federated management approach takes advantage of long standing and
highly effective financial and acquisition management processes, by
using Department staff resources efficiently thereby reducing
duplication of efforts. Our approach also allows for leveraging the
extensive development, monitoring and control processes for both
budget and acquisition that are found in every Military Service,
Agency and Component operations. DoD does agree that a strategy,
consistent with the intent of achieving better buying power and
control of commodity IT items, should be developed and implemented
within the Department using existing authorities and is in the process
of implementing such a strategy.
OMB M-11-29, Chief Information Officer Authorities, [hyperlink
http://www.whltehouse.gov/sltes/default/flles/omb/memoranda/2011/mll-
29.pdf]. Commodity IT was defined as Including services such as, "IT
infrastructure (data centers, networks, desktop computers and mobile
devices); enterprise IT systems (email, collaboration tools, identity
and access management, security, and web Infrastructure); and business
systems (finance, human resources, and other administrative
functions)."
Recommendation 3: To improve the department's implementation of
Portfolio Stat, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the
CIO to take the following action: Obtain support from the relevant
component agencies for the estimated savings for fiscal years 2013 to
2015 for the data center consolidation, enterprise software
purchasing, and General Fund Enterprise Business System initiatives.
DoD Response: DoD concurs with this recommendation. DoD already
reports data center consolidation savings to both OMB and Congress and
will continue to realize savings from the Enterprise Software
Initiative, other strategic sourcing efforts, and the continuing
implementation of GFEBS.
Recommendation 4: To improve the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers'
implementation of PortfolioStat, we recommend that the Secretary of
Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to take the following action:
Fully describe the following PortfolioStat action plan elements: (1)
consolidate commodity IT spending under the agency CIO; (2) target
duplicative systems or contracts that support common business
functions for consolidation; (3) establish criteria for identifying
wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments; and (4) establish a
process to identify these potential investments and a schedule for
eliminating them from the portfolio, in future OMB reporting.
DoD Response: DoD concurs with Recommendation 4. Current status: In
future OMB reporting, u.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will fully
describe the four action plan elements mentioned above.
Recommendation 5: To improve the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
implementation of PortfolioStat, we recommend that the Secretary of
Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to take the following action:
Report on the agency's progress in consolidating eCPIC to a shared
service as part of the OMB integrated data collection quarterly
reporting until completed.
DoD Response: DoD concurs with Recommendation 5. Current status: On 9
August 2013, USACE obligated funds with GSA to provide eCPIC services.
On 18 September 2013, GSA completed migration of USACE's data into the
eCPIC database. USACE will begin using eCPIC for OMB reporting on or
about 1 October 2013. Full implementation of eCPIC and divestiture
from the legacy Information Technology Investment Portfolio System
(ITIPS) should be complete by the end ofFY14. Status updates will be
provided to OMB quarterly.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Department of Energy:
Washington, DC 20585:
September 27, 2013
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of the Chief Information
Officer (OCIO) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the
General Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Information Technology
(IT) Report. Additional OMB and Agency Actions Needed to Achieve
Portfolio Savings. We understand this audit was concluded to review
the Department's implementation of PortfolioStat. DOE values the OMB
PortfolioStat process and is committed to addressing the actions
outlined in the report.
We offer the following Management Response to the Energy
Recommendation:
Recommendation: Fully describe the following PortfolioStat action plan
elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT spending under the agency CIO;
and (2) establish criteria for identifying wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments, in future OMB reporting.
The Department concurs with the recommendation.
(1) In accordance with OMB Memorandum M-11-29, Chief Information
Officer Authorities, dated August 8, 2011, the Department is committed
to increasing the DOE CIO's oversight and authority for federal
commodity IT investments through the IT Modernization Strategy issued by
the Deputy Secretary in 2012. We are in the process of developing
senior executive level governance boards that will make information
management policy and commodity IT investment decisions for the
Department. As an example, we recently established the DOE Cybersecurity
Council responsible for coordinating cybersecurity planning across the
Department. The Cybersecurity Council is chaired by the Deputy
Secretary and involves senior level decision-makers, including the DOE
CIO, from across the Department. DOE will update policy orders as
necessary to implement the OMS policy and include a description in
future OMS reporting.
(2) As stated in the PortlolioStat action plan, DOE has a corporate-
level budget formulation process and various IT governance boards to
prioritize high-priority, initiatives. The OCIO will work to establish
additional value criteria to identify low-value or duplicative federal
commodity IT investments. The criteria will assist the Department in
identifying additional cost saving opportunities for IT that balances
mission agility with efficient DOE commodity IT service delivery. The
criteria will be described in future OMS reporting.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this report. If you
have any questions related to this letter, please feel free to contact
me at (202) 586-0166.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Robert F. Brese:
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Office of Environmental Information:
Washington, D.C. 20460:
September 25, 2013:
Mr. Paul Sabine:
Assistant Director:
Information Technology Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Sabine:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on GAO's draft
report "Information Technology - Additional OMB and Agency Actions Arc
Needed to Achieve Portfolio Savings."
The purpose of this letter is to provide the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) response to your recommendations addressed
to EPA.
The GAO draft report identifies a number of planned improvements
outlined in OMS's PortfolioStat guidance as well as weaknesses in the
implementation of PortfolioStat. The weaknesses include limitations in
the CIOs' authority and in agency commodity information technology
(IT) baselines, accountability for migrating selected commodity IT
areas, and the information on agencies progress that OMB intends to
make public. The EPA generally agrees with some of the GAO's
recommendations as outlined below.
GAO Recommendation 1:
To improve the agency's implementation of PortfolioStat, we recommend
that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency direct
the CIO to take the following three actions:
* Develop a complete commodity IT baseline.
EPA Response:
EPA generally disagrees with this recommendation as follows:
* A complete commodity IT baseline was provided to OMS on August 31,
2012, and uploaded to the OMB MAX site.
* The EPA provided the following response to GAO in a letter dated
April 25, 2013: "The summary commodity IT base line information OMB
provided in EPA's "PorfolioStat Agency Briefing Book" was current and
complete at the time of submiss ion in June 2012."
* A revised commodity IT baseline and inventory was provided to the
OMB MAX site on August 30. 2013. as part of the PortfolioStat
submission.
GAO Recommendation 2:
* Fully describe the following PortfolioStat action plan elements:
(1) Consolidate commodity IT spending under the agency CIO;
(2) Establish targets for commodity IT spending reductions and
deadlines for meeting those targets; and;
(3) Establish criteria for identifying wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments, in future OM B reporting.
EPA Response:
(1) Consolidate commodity IT spending under the agency CIO. EPA
generally agrees with this recommendation as follows:
* The CIO is currently reviewing the commodity IT areas and is
developing a plan to move existing stand alone contracts/task orders
to enterprise-wide licensing agreements, where they currently do not
exist today.
(2) Establish targets for commodity IT spending reductions and
deadlines for meeting those targets.
EPA somewhat agrees with this recommendation as follows:
* The current review of commodity IT areas and subsequent plan
development to move stand alone contracts task order to enterprise
agreements is underway. This activity will yield reductions in overall
commodity IT spending through efficiencies.
* Establishing arbitrary reduction targets without corresponding
requirements for IT services needed to accomplish the Agency's mission
requires further evaluation.
(3) Establish criteria for identifying wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments, in future OMB reporting.
EPA generally agrees with this recommendation as follows:
* For new in vestments, EPA uses its governance structure to review
and assess commodity IT and other investments. The Quality and
Information Council and its subcommittees. Quality Technology
Subcommittee and Information Investment Subcommittee (IIS),
coordinate information technology/information management and related
issues.
* EPA is restructuring the IIS by broadening its scope to include
greater portfolio management rigor in Capital Planning and Investment
Control, Enterprise Architecture, and PortfolioStat. This will enable
the IIS to establish criteria for identifying wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative in vestments.
GAO Recommendation 3:
* Report on the agency's progress in consolidating the managed print
services and strategic sourcing of end user computing to shared
services as part of the OMS integrated data collection quarterly
reporting until completed.
EPA Response:
The EPA generally agrees with this recommendation as follows:
* The EPA awarded a four year contract for managed print services in
April of 2013. The service covers 15 geographic locations and over
1,000 printing devices. The contract vehicle has the ability to expand
and service the entire EPA enterprise over time. The MPS is expected
to take on additional devices and locations beginning in April 2014.
* The EPA is developing an IDIQ IT contract vehicle for purchasing and
leasing of end user computing equipment. The contract is expected to
be awarded by December 2013.
* The EPA is not working with other government agencies on this effort.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on GAO's draft
report. The EPA generally agrees with some of the GAO's
recommendations and disagrees with one as outlined above. If you have
any questions. please contact Fawn Freeman at 202-564-2762.
Sincerely,
Renee P. Wynn:
Acting Assistant Administrator and Acting Chief Information Officer:
cc:
EPA GAO Liaison Team:
Fawn Freeman, Director, Mission Investment Solutions Division:
Patricia Williams, OEF GAO Liaison:
Anne Mangiafico, Audit Coordinator:
[End of section]
Appendix X: Comments from the General Services Administration:
GSA:
The Administrator:
U.S. General Services Administration:
1800 F Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20405:
Telephone: (202) 501-0800:
Fax: (202) 219-1243:
September 25,2013:
The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro:
Comptroller General of the United States:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Dodaro:
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) appreciates the
opportunity to review and comment on the draft report, "Information
Technology: Additional OMS and Agency Actions Are Needed to Achieve
Portfolio Savings (GAO-14-65)."
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommends that the
Administrator of GSA direct their Chief Information Officer to take
the following action:
* To improve the agency's implementation of PortfolioStat and report
on the agency's progress in consolidating the contract writing module
to a shared service as part of the OMS integrated data collection
quarterly reporting until completed.
We agree with the findings and recommendations and will take action as
appropriate. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (202) 501-0800, or Ms. Lisa Austin,
Associate Administrator, Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs,
at (202) 501-0563.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Dan Tangherlini:
Administrator:
cc: Mr. David A. Powner, Director, Information Technology Management
Issues, GAO.
[End of section]
Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
October 23, 2013:
David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: Draft Report GAO-14-65, "Information Technology: Additional OMB
and Agency Actions Are Needed to Achieve Portfolio Savings"
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and
conducting its review and issuing this report.
The Department is pleased to note GAO's positive acknowledgment that
DHS substantially addressed the required elements in the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2012 PortfolioStat Agency Action Plan, met required migration
efforts for two commodity Information Technology (IT) areas, and
significantly contributed to PortfolioStat initiatives, cost savings,
and cost avoidance.
The draft report contained one recommendation directed to DHS with
which the Department non-concurs. Specifically, GAO recommended that
the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the DHS Chief Information
Officer (CIO) to:
Recommendation: Fully describe the following PortfolioStat action plan
element, consolidate commodity IT spending under the agency CIO, in
future OMB reporting.
Response: Non-Concur. DHS has already addressed the consolidation of
commodity IT spending under the agency CIO consistent with Office of
Management and Budget Memorandum M-11-29, "Chief Information Officer
Authorities," dated August 8, 2011. The FY 2013 PortfolioStat
deliverable "DHS Information Resources Management (IRM) Strategic
Plan," Appendix F, aligns the functional areas of M-11-29 to the DHS
directives and delegations that implement the functional activity. M-
11-29, under Commodity IT, specifies that, "the CIO shall pool their
agency's purchasing power across their entire organization to drive
down costs and improve service for commodity IT." DHS Delegation
Number 04000, "Delegation for Information Technology," dated June 5,
2012, directs the DHS CIO to work:
* in conjunction with the DHS Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO) to
eliminate duplication of commodity IT services, such as: IT
infrastructure (data centers, networks, desktop computers, and mobile
devices), enterprise IT systems (email, collaboration tools, identity
and access management, security, and Web infrastructure), and business
systems (finance, human resources, and other administrative functions).
* with the CAO and the DHS Chief Financial Officer to pool the
Department's purchasing power to drive down costs and improve service
for commodity IT services.
The FY 2013 DHS IRM Strategic Plan describes how the DHS CIO has been
delegated the authority to oversee the Department's commodity IT
spending via Delegation Number 04000, consistent with the IRM action
plan element regarding consolidation of commodity IT spending under
the Agency CIO. Given the foregoing explanation, we request that this
recommendation be considered resolved and closed.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this draft report.
Technical comments were provided under separate cover. Please feel
free to contact me if you have any questions. We look forward to
working with you in the future.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jim H. Crumpacker:
Director:
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix XII: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development:
Chief Information Officer:
Washington, DC 20410-3000:
September 23, 2013:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled, Information
Technology: Additional OMB and Agency Actions Are Needed to Achieve
Portfolio Savings (GAO-14-65).
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reviewed the
draft report and concurs with the recommendations for Executive
Action. More definitive information with timelines will be provided
once the final report has been issued. HUD remains committed to
meeting the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) PortfolioStat
requirements.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please
contact Joyce M. Little, Chief, Audit Compliance Branch, at or 202-402-
7404.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Barbara A. Elliott:
Acting Chief Information Officer:
[End of section]
Appendix XIII: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Headquarters:
Washington, DC 20546-0001:
September 27, 2013:
Reply to Attn of: Office of the Chief Information Officer:
Mr. David Powner:
Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) appreciates
the opportunity to review and comment on the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) draft report entitled, "Information Technology:
Additional OMB and Agency Actions Are Needed to Achieve Portfolio
Savings" (GAO-14-65).
In the draft report, GAO addresses three recommendations to the NASA
Administrator. To improve implementation of the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) PortfolioStat process, GAO recommends that the NASA
Administrator direct the Chief Information Officer to take the
following actions:
Recommendation 1: Reflect 100 percent of information technology
investments in the agency's enterprise architecture.
Management's Response: Concur. NASA continues to work toward
reflecting all information technology investments in the enterprise
architecture. NASA's policy regarding Enterprise Architecture (NPR
2830.1) is currently under review and describes the architecture
process that will help enable this. NASA is also working with the OMB
Federal Enterprise Architect to meet the requirements as defined in
the Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture. High-level
target architectures have been established for all of the core IT
infrastructure domains (applications, compute, communications, end
user, information, and security) and roadmaps have been developed for
each that identify the transition investments over the next five
years. NASA IT research and development investments have been
described in the Strategic Space Technology Investment Plan and its
associated IT Roadmaps. An Enterprise Architecture Board charter is
being developed that will enable the board to oversee architecture
activities and ensure IT investments are included in the architecture.
An architecture checklist has been developed and is being utilized to
help ensure investments align with the architecture. NASA is also in
the early stages of implementing an enterprise architecture tool that
will allow for more easy inclusion of investments into the
architecture.
NASA will work toward reaching a goal of 50 percent by the end of FY14
and 90 percent by the end of FY15. NASA will strive to reflect 100
percent of information technology investments in the Agency's
enterprise architecture; however, due to NASA's evolving mission and
the reality of Government budget cuts, the 100 percent target may
not be attainable.
Recommendation 2: Fully describe the following PortfolioStat action
plan elements: (1) consolidate commodity IT spending under the agency
CIO; (2) target duplicative systems or contracts that support common
business functions for consolidation; (3) establish criteria for
identifying wasteful, low-value, or duplicative investments; and (4)
establish a process to identify these potential investments and a
schedule for eliminating them from the portfolio, in future OMB
reporting.
Management's Response: Concur. Over the past ten years, NASA has
consolidated a significant number of commodity IT systems and services
and implemented an Agency shared-services center. As an example, the
Integrated Enterprise Management Program (2000-2009) consolidated
multiple Center Financial Systems into one Agency-wide Core Financial
Management system and Business Warehouse; consolidated Real Property and
Personal Property Management systems and integrated those with the
financial system; and consolidated and integrated Human Capital
Systems, integrated data into Business Warehouse, and interfaced all
HR systems. Further, NASA launched the NASA Shared Services Center
(NSSC) in 2006 to perform Agency-wide transactional and administrative
activities that had been performed at each of our Centers.
Additionally, NASA's Information Technology Infrastructure Integration
Program (I3P) (2007-Present) has consolidated NASA's e-mail services
into one system; consolidated IT security incident management and
response across the Agency through the Security Operations Center
(SOC); centralized IT contract and financial management to support
the Agency I3P program; established an Agency Enterprise Service Desk
as an integrated multi-tier support for service delivery; and launched
Agency Consolidated End-User Services (ACES) to maintain the end-user
IT inventory. In 2012, the Agency established the NASA Integrated
Communications Services (NICS) to consolidate and operate NASA's
communication capabilities and to provide enterprise management
services. In 2013, an Agency Web Services contract (WESTPrime) was
awarded to utilize cloud services and to use open source software for
Web site and Web application development and hosting, which will
result in additional savings.
NASA will continue to fully describe these and future efforts in the
OMB quarterly PortfolioStat reporting updates. NASA estimates
completion by June 2014.
Recommendation 3: Report on the agency's progress in consolidating the
NASA Integrated Communications Services Consolidated Configuration
Management System (NC2MS) to an enterprise-wide shared service as part
of the OMB integrated data collection quarterly reporting until
completed.
Management's Response: Concur. NASA will repOt1 on the progress
ofNC2MS until the project is complete, which is currently scheduled
for February 2014.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft report. If you
have any questions or require additional information, please contact
Valarie Burks at (202) (358-3716).
Signed by:
Larry Sweet:
Chief Information Officer:
[End of section]
Appendix XIV: Comments from the National Archives and Records
Administration:
National Archives:
Archivist of The United States:
David S. Ferriero:
T: 202-357-5900:
F: 202-357-5901:
david.ferriero@nara.gov:
National Archives and Records Administration:
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW:
Washington, DC 20408-0001:
www.archives.gov
September 24, 2013:
David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
44 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report 14-65 titled "Additional
OMS and Agency Actions Are Needed to Achieve Portfolio Savings." We
concur with your recommendation to fully describe several elements in
our PortfolioStat action plan, including:
1. Consolidate commodity IT spending under the Agency CIO;
2. Target duplicative systems or contracts that support common
business functions for consolidation;
3. Establish criteria for identifying wasteful, low-value, or
duplicative investments; and;
4. Establish a process to identify these potential investments and a
schedule for eliminating them from the portfolio.
We will include new or updated descriptions in future OMS reporting.
If you have any questions regarding this memo, please contact Carla
Riner, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, at 301-837-0643 or via email at
carla.riner@nara.gov.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David S. Ferriero:
Archivist of the United States:
Via email to:
David A. Powner, pownerD@gao.gov:
Sabine R. Paul, PauIS@gao.gov:
[End of section]
Appendix XV: Comments from the National Science Foundation:
National Science Foundation:
4201 Wilson Boulevard:
Arlington, Virginia 22230:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft GAO
Report "Information Technology: Additional OMB and Agency Actions are
Needed to Achieve Portfolio Savings" (GAO-14-65).
NSF is pleased to note GAO's generally positive assessment of our
compliance with PortfolioStat initiative requirements. NSF generally
agrees with GAO's characterization of our status, but wishes to provide
clarification about the completeness of our PortfolioStat Action Plan.
GAO's assessment indicates that two elements of NSF's PortfolioStat
Action Plan were not complete. NSF believes that the agency
PortfolioStat Action Plan does include information about the agency's
activities to consolidate commodity IT spending under the agency CIO
and to establish criteria for identifying duplicative, low-value, and
wasteful investments. Per GAO's recommendation, NSF will plan to
update the PortfolioStat Action Plan as appropriate to more fully
describe these activities.
NSF also wishes to provide an update on the status of agency commodity
IT migration efforts. NSF's cloud email migration efforts were
successfully completed in August 2013. We reported the status of our
efforts to OMB during our PortfolioStat session, and will follow up
with formal reporting as required.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
draft report. We look forward to working with you on future NSF
engagements. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to
contact me at (703) 292-8100.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
[Illegible] for:
Amy Northcutt:
Chief Information Officer:
[End of section]
Appendix XVI: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:
United States Office of Personnel Management:
Chief Information Officer:
Washington, DC 20415:
September 23, 2013:
David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G. ST. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
OPM Responses to Draft GAO Report GAO-14-65:
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has reviewed the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft audit report (GAO-14-65)
on OPM's PortfolioStat program and is in concurrence with the findings
and recommendations identified in the report. We recognize that the
OPM programs can benefit from an external evaluation and we appreciate
the GAO input as we continue to work to enhance the OPM PortfolioStat
Review process. Specific responses to your recommendations are
provided below.
GAO Recommendation 1: Develop a complete commodity IT baseline.
OPM Management Response: OPM concurs with the GAO recommendation. OPM
had submitted a commodity IT baseline to OMB on June 15, 2012. OPM
will continue to update the commodity IT baseline as required by OMB
on November 30, 2013.
GAO Recommendation 2: Fully describe the following PortfolioStat
action plan elements: (1) move at least two commodity IT areas to
shared services; and (2) target duplicative systems or contracts that
support common business functions for consolidation, in future OMB
reporting.
OPM Management Response: OPM concurs with the GAO recommendation. OPM
has completed several elements and continued to plan for the two
shared services initiatives and will provide the planning elements as
required by the next OMB reporting due November 30, 2013. OPM is still
performing on-going review of contracting processes to address the
consolidation issues and will provide information to the next OMB
reporting due November 30, 2013.
GAO Recommendation 3: Report on the agency's progress in consolidating
the help desk consolidation and IT asset inventory to shared services
as part of the OMB integrated data collection quarterly reporting
until completed.
OPM Management Response: OPM concurs with the GAO recommendation. OPM
has completed some of the help desk consolidation elements and
continues to make strides in future planning for additional
consolidation. OPM is continuing to develop the IT asset inventory
shared service offering. OPM will provide progress information to the
OMB integrated data collection quarterly reporting as required by OMB
on November 30, 2013.
Please contact Ms. Janet Barnes at (202) 606-3207 should your office
require additional information.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Charles Simpson:
Acting, Chief Information Officer:
U.S. Office of Personnel Management:
[End of section]
Appendix XVII: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
Social Security:
Office of the Commissioner:
Social Security Administration:
Baltimore, MD 21235-0001:
September 27, 2013:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report, "Information
Technology: Additional OMB and Agency Actions Are Needed to Achieve
Portfolio Savings." Our response to the audit report contents,
findings, and recommendations are enclosed.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (410) 965-0520. Your
staff may contact Gary S. Hatcher, Senior Advisor for Records
Management and Audit Liaison Staff, at (410) 965-0680.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Katherine Thornton:
Deputy Chief of Staff:
Enclosure:
Comments On The Government Accountability Office Draft Report,
"Information Technology: Additional OMB And Agency Actions Are Needed
To Achieve Portfolio Savings" (GAO-14-65):
We remain committed to PortfolioStat objectives and our complete and
accurate compliance of its requirements.
Recommendation 1:
Develop a complete commodity Information Technology (IT) baseline.
Response:
We do not agree with your assessment that our commodity Information
Technology (IT) baseline is incomplete. We believe our commodity IT
baseline data are complete and accurate. While we
did not develop a separate formal process to comply with
PortfolioStat, our baseline is a subset, derived through a data call,
of our rigorous IT Capital Planning and Investment Control Process.
We will formally document our process to demonstrate the completeness
of our commodity IT baseline in our next annual cycle.
Recommendation 2:
Report on the progress in consolidating the geospatial architecture to
a shared service as part of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
integrated data collection quarterly reporting until completed.
Response:
We agree. The two shared service efforts we designated for migration
were Enterprise Social Media and Geospatial Architecture (GA). We
completed migration of our Enterprise Social Media in December 2012.
For GA, we established a work group to develop a business case and
Geospatial Information Systems architecture, which will provide a
common resource for business users across the agency. We have
completed a number of activities that included implementing a primary
infrastructure, implemented our shared-license strategy, conducted a
supporting connection to test and develop a best practice environment.
However, deployment and testing with existing product users has
extended the timeline for full consolidation and access capability for
all users. We expect to fully implement GA by September 2014.
[End of section]
Appendix XIII: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Comptroller:
P.O. Box 150008:
Charleston, SC 29415-5008:
Dr. Loren Yager:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Dr. Yager:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report,
"Information Technology: Additional OMB and Agency Actions
Are Needed to Achieve Portfolio Savings" GAO Job Code 311280.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Colleen Hinton, IT Manager, Bureau of Information Resource Management
at (202) 634-0320.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James L. Millette:
cc:
GAO - David A. Powner:
IRM - Steven Taylor:
State/OIG - Norman Brown:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
Information Technology: Additional OMB and Agency Actions are
Needed to Achieve Portfolio Savings (GAO-14-65, GAO Code 311280):
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled
“Information Technology: Additional OMB and Agency Actions are Needed to
Achieve Portfolio Savings.”
The GAO draft report provides three recommendations for the Department
to improve the implementation of FY12 PortfolioStat actions: (1)
ensure that 100% of IT investments are in the Department’s enterprise
architecture, (2) update FY12 PortfolioStat Action Plan to address
additional elements, and (3) report to on the progress of
consolidating the Foreign Affairs Network and content publishing
and delivery services as part of OMB’s Integrated Data Collection
process. In response to GAO’s recommendations, the Department concurs
with comment; State would like to clarify to GAO that State has
already consolidated more than two commodity IT areas per OMB
Memorandum M-11-29. Specifically, State has consolidated systems for
email, human resources, financial management, procurements, and a
consolidated IT refresh supply chain service. The Department will
develop responses to each of the GAO recommendations once the report is
published, as well as update OMB’s Integrated Data Collection to
reflect the status of current activities.
[End of section]
Appendix XIX: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:
Department of Veterans Affairs:
Washington DC 20420:
September 30, 2013:
Ms. Debra A. Draper:
Director, Health Care:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Draper:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, "Information Technology:
Additional OMB and Agency Actions Are Needed to Achieve Portfolio
Savings" (GAO-14-65). VA generally agrees with GAO's conclusions and
concurs with GAO's four recommendations to the Department.
VA is taking concrete steps to manage its investment portfolio more
effectively. The actions identified in the attachment will help to
foster an environment at VA in which investments can be evaluated with
respect to their value to the enterprise as a whole. VA will be able
to assess the extent to which a planned investment either improves
mission execution or decreases the cost of operations. Further, the
Department will be able to measure how well the investment meets goals
throughout its lifecycle.
The enclosure specifically addresses GAO's four recommendations and
provides an action plan for each. VA appreciates the opportunity to
comment on your draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jose D. Riojas:
Chief of Staff:
Enclosure:
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Response to Government
Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report:
"Information Technology: Additional OMB and Agency Actions Are
Needed to Achieve Portfolio Savings" (GAO-14-65):
To improve the department's implementation of PortfolioStat, we
recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the CIO to
take the following four actions:
GAO Recommendation 1: Fully describe the following PortfolioStat
action plan element, target duplicative systems or contracts that
support common business functions for consolidation, in future OMB
reporting.
VA Comment: Concur. VA's Office of Information Technology's (OIT)
Ruthless Reduction Task Force (RRTF) continues to identify
opportunities for cost avoidance in VA information technology (IT)
expenses by a variety of means including decommissioning redundant
systems; consolidation of development and test environments;
implementation of service-oriented architecture, data center
consolidation, and cloud computing; and efficiencies in obtaining
security approvals for would-be employees and contractors.
The OIT Vendor Management Office (VMO) was established to provide a
strategy map for vendor management and to clearly define roles and
responsibilities across the enterprise. OIT VMO works hand-in-hand
with the RRTF to identify duplicative efforts, cost avoidances with
enterprise license agreements negotiations, and strategic sourcing
opportunities.
Future Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Reporting:
RRTF recommendations will include activities that contribute to the
improvement of information resource management in a sustainable manner
and will be used to inform the annual budget formulation process. Task
force findings will also be reported in accordance with the OMB Fiscal
Year (FY) 2013 PortfolioStat Guidance (M-13-09) on a quarterly basis.
* VA is actively introducing Enterprise Architecture (EA) products and
information into the strategic planning, programming, and budgeting
processes within the Department as a whole and OIT in particular. VA
recognizes EA's role in providing critical information to support
business process integration, enterprise data governance, application
architecture and service-oriented architecture, and infrastructure
rationalization.
* In particular, VA is identifying opportunities to leverage EA
information in our RRTF work and use RRTF findings in our systems
engineering and investment decision processes.
* VA is strengthening the Department-wide IT Planning, Programming,
Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) process which will emphasize the use of
alternative analyses and business cases as input to key decision
processes. VA's IT investment management processes will align to the
Department's ensuring that consistent criteria and analyses are used
at all phases of portfolio management.
GAO Recommendation 2: Report on the department's progress in
consolidating the dedicated fax servers to a shared service as part of
the OMB integrated data collection quarterly reporting until completed.
VA Comment: Concur. VA did not accomplish Elimination of Analog Fax
Lines in 2012. VA is not stepping back from the cost containment idea,
but it did not accomplish the effort as planned. When the cost basis
was revised by leadership, it was determined that the return on
investment (ROI) fell to 0.55 from 7.59. As a result, this effort is
being reprioritized and considered for the FY 2014 budget cycle.
GAO Recommendation 3: As the department matures its enterprise
architecture process, make use of it as well as the valuation model to
identify whether there are additional opportunities to reduce
duplicative, low-value, or wasteful investments.
VA Comment: Concur. VA is working both to mature its EA and to
incorporate architectural products and information into key enterprise
processes. In 2012, the OneVA EA program developed Compliance Criteria
as a guide to the Department's Enterprise Technical Architecture;
these criteria are used in assessments of projects in connection with
VA's Project Management Accountability System, the governance
structure for IT systems development.
Members of the OneVA EA team have been collaborating with the Director
of Strategy for VA and are now working with the office in charge of
implementing the Department's updated PPBE processes. The goal of the
EA team is to develop architecture products that will inform these
processes and promote the use of architecture as the decision support
tool to inform key Department decisions, particularly in the planning
and programming cycles. These products (views, reports, and analyses)
will be used to identify redundancies as well as gaps in planned
investments.
The EA team will be working with members of the RRTF to familiarize
them with EA and to make EA products available to the RRTF in their
analyses. Members of the team are also beginning work with the
Information Technology Resources Management organization within OIT in
order to 1) develop the appropriate alignment of budget information to
architectural information and 2) use EA (gap and redundancy analyses,
etc.) to inform the IT budget formulation process. The results of
these collaboration efforts will be incorporated into scheduled EA
releases.
By the end of FY 2014, VA expects to have EA products in use and
informing PPBE decision processes and IT budget formulation processes.
GAO Recommendation 4: Develop detailed support for the estimated
savings for fiscal years 2013 to 2015 for the Server Virtualization,
Eliminate Dedicated Fax Servers Consolidation, Renegotiate Microsoft
Enterprise License Agreement, one CPU policy initiatives.
VA Comment: Concur. Information on specific topics is provided below:
Virtualize Server: Initiative was initially scoped to achieve 50
percent server virtualization with anticipated cost avoidance
(reported in the PortfolioStat as of August 2013) as follows: in FY
2012 - $84,000; FY 2013 - $424,000; FY 2014 - $754,000; and FY 2015 -
$1.1 million. During FY 2013, the initiative was re-scoped to
increase server virtualization to 75 percent. The RRTF team is
reworking the ROI and cost avoidance estimates based on the revised
scope.
Eliminate Dedicated Fax Servers: See current status detailed under
recommendation 2:
Renegotiate Microsoft Enterprise License Agreement: Total savings over
the 5-year period renegotiated is $161 million. Annual costs were
reduced from $114 million per year to $77 million, with a one-time
"true up" fee of $24 million paid in FY 2012.
One CPU Policy: To maximize resource utilization, reduce VA's IT
footprint, and eliminate inefficiencies (and potential conflicts and
confusion) due to competing policies, the One CPU Policy and Field
Mobile Workers and Tele-work Support Agreement (i.e., End User Device
Support Agreement) were integrated into one strategy. The End User
Device Support Agreement will provide guidance and expectations to
standardize IT devices across the enterprise while promoting telework.
A new economic justification is being developed based on the
consolidated strategy and will be provided when completed.
[End of section]
Appendix XX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, individuals making
contributions to this report included Sabine Paul (Assistant
Director), Valerie Hopkins, Lee McCracken, Tomas Ramirez, and Bradley
Roach.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation,
Overlap and Duplication, and Achieve Other Financial Benefits,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-279SP] (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 9, 2013); 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce
Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance
Revenue, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-342SP]
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and Opportunities to Reduce
Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and
Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011).
[2] The 26 agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland
Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor,
State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the
Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Archives and
Records Administration, National Science Foundation, Office of
Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, Social Security
Administration, U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
[3] An enterprise architecture is a modernization blueprint that
describes the organization's current and desired state for business
operations and supporting IT systems in both logical and technical
terms, and contains a plan for transitioning between the two states.
[4] An IT valuation model or methodology is used to comparatively
evaluate investments based on their value to the agency and the cost
to the taxpayer using a set of agency-defined criteria.
[5] OMB, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information
Technology Management (Washington, D.C.: December 2010).
[6] See GAO, Information Technology: OMB and Agencies Need to More
Effectively Implement Major Initiatives to Save Billions of Dollars,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-796T] (Washington,
D.C.: July 25, 2013).
[7] The Clinger-Cohen Act sets out requirements for capital planning
and investment control and for performance-based and results-based
management. 40 U.S.C. §§ 11302-11303.
[8] GAO, Information Technology: OMB Needs to Improve Its Guidance on
IT Investments, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-826]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2011).
[9] GAO, Information Technology: Departments of Defense and Energy
Need to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-241] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 17,
2012).
[10] In June 2009, OMB deployed a public website known as the IT
Dashboard, which provides detailed information on federal agencies'
major IT investments, including assessments of actual performance
against cost and schedule targets (referred to as ratings).
[11] GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework
for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity (Version 1.1),
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-394G] (Washington,
D.C.: March 2004).
[12] OMB, Implementing PortfolioStat, Memorandum M-12-10 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 30, 2012).
[13] OMB made available "Frequently Asked Questions" which included
definitions of these types of commodity IT investment based on OMB
Circular A-11 and the Federal Enterprise Architecture Consolidated
Reference Model (OMB, Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and
Execution of the Budget (Washington, D.C.: August 2012); OMB, FEA
Consolidated Reference Model Document Version 2.3 (Washington, D.C.:
October 2007)).
[14] Cloud computing is an emerging form of delivering computing
services via networks with the potential to provide IT services more
quickly and at a lower cost. Cloud computing provides users with on-
demand access to a shared and scalable pool of computing resources
with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.
[15] OMB M-12-10.
[16] OMB, Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies:
Chief Information Officer Authorities, M-11-29 (Washington, D.C.: Aug.
8, 2011).
[17] OMB M-11-29 states that CIOs must drive the investment review
process for IT investments and have responsibility over the entire IT
portfolio for an agency.
[18] OMB, Management of Federal Information Resources, Circular A-130
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 28, 2000).
[19] In January 2010, OMB began conducting TechStats, which are face-
to-face, evidence-based reviews of an at-risk IT investment.
Subsequently, as part of the Federal CIO's 25-point IT Reform Plan,
OMB empowered agency CIOs to hold their own TechStat sessions within
their respective agencies and required agencies to hold at least one
TechStat session by March 2011, and one bureau-led TechStat review by
June 2012. In August 2011, OMB M-11-29 required agency CIOs to
continue holding TechStat sessions.
[20] The Department of Energy referred to a statutory basis to support
its statement about two semi-autonomous agencies. See generally
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L. No.
106-65, title XXXII, 113 Stat. 512, 953 (1999); Department of Energy
Organization Act, Pub. L. No. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565 (1977).
[21] GAO, Federal Chief Information Officers: Opportunities Exist to
Improve Role in Information Technology Management, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-634] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15,
2011).
[22] OMB, Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies:
Chief Information Officer Authorities, M-11-29 (Washington, D.C.: Aug.
8, 2011).
[23] See Pub. L. No. 104-106, Div. E, 110 Stat. 186, 679 (1996); P.L.
No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-393 (1996); 40 U.S.C 11101, et seq.
[24] OMB, Guidance on Exhibits 53 and 300 - Information Technology and
E-Government (Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2013).
[25] The remaining four agencies only addressed major investments in
their response.
[26] GAO, Information Technology: Additional Executive Review Sessions
Needed to Address Troubled Projects, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-524] (Washington, D.C.: June 13,
2013).
[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-394G].
[28] OMB did not request information on the number of systems
associated with IT infrastructure.
[29] GAO, Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete
Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565] (Washington, D.C.: July 19,
2011); and GAO, Agencies' Annual Performance Plans under the Results
Act: An Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18]
(Washington, D.C.: February 1998).
[30] GAO, Information Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to Its
Dashboard, but Further Work Is Needed by Agencies and OMB to Ensure
Data Accuracy, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2011).
[31] The Department of Education was unable to confirm the individuals
who attended its PortfolioStat session, and the Department of Health
and Human Services was only able to confirm that its CIO was in
attendance. In addition, the National Science Foundation and the
Office of Personnel Management stated that they did not have a chief
administrative officer at the time of the 2012 PortfolioStat session.
[32] We recognize that there may be instances where legal or other
constraints upon the agency may limit the CIO's consolidation of
authority over commodity IT spending. In this report, however, we
assess agencies' completion of a final action plan, required by OMB,
an element of which is a description of plans to consolidate authority
over commodity IT spending under the agency CIO.
[33] OMB provided agencies a template for documenting successes,
challenges, and lessons learned in key areas, including CIO authority,
valuation model, and program management, although several agencies
used their own format.
[34] An IT valuation model or methodology is used to comparatively
evaluate investments based on their value to the agency and the cost
to the taxpayer using a set of agency-defined criteria. The federal
CIO Council Best Practices committee issued a how-to-guide in October
2002 whose purpose is to define, capture, and measure value associated
with electronic services unaccounted for in traditional return-on-
investment calculations, to fully account for costs, and to identify
and consider risk. See CIO Council Best Practices Committee, Value
Measuring Methodology: How-To-Guide (Washington, D.C.: October 2002).
[35] According to OMB Exhibit 300 guidance, cost savings represents
the reduction in actual expenditures while cost avoidance represents
results taken from an action in the immediate time frame that will
decrease costs in the future.
[36] Subsequent to its report of agencies' planned consolidation
initiatives and associated savings, OMB issued the 2013 PortfolioStat
memo requiring agencies to submit an updated list of consolidation
initiatives and estimated cost savings and avoidance by May 15, 2013.
Some agencies reported to us that the information provided in this
submission has changed from what they reported in 2012.
[37] For each of the five agencies, we requested the supporting
documentation for four efforts: the two efforts that were to be
migrated by December 2012 and two efforts with the highest anticipated
cost savings or avoidance for fiscal year 2013 to 2015.
[38] Since 1995, we have designated the Department of Defense's
business systems modernization program as high risk because of its
vulnerability to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, and because
of missed opportunities to achieve greater efficiencies. Since then,
we have made a series of recommendations aimed at strengthening its
institutional approach to modernization and reducing the risk
associated with key investments. See most recently GAO, DOD Business
Systems Modernization: Further Actions Needed to Address Challenges
and Improve Accountability, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-557] (Washington, D.C.: May 17,
2013).
[39] We were informed the document was classified at the end of our
review. Due to the timing, we decided not to obtain a copy or select
another initiative for review.
[40] These estimates are based on Treasury's May 2013 integrated data
collection to OMB and do not include cost savings or avoidance of
$116. 25 million which Treasury anticipates will be achieved by other
federal agencies using its Invoice Processing Platform.
[41] We did not review supporting documentation for the cost
savings/avoidance estimates associated with the Invoice Processing
Platform due to the fact that these cost savings/avoidance will be
achieved by other agencies, not Treasury.
[42] The Ruthless Reduction Task Force's approach includes: (1)
utilizing subject matter expert opinions to examine analytical and
engineering processes; perform an analysis of alternatives through
business case analysis, financial analysis, and cost analysis; and re-
examine/modify approaches to achieving cost savings/avoidance; (2)
reviewing the use of IT equipment, software, and systems to determine
value, gauge efficiency, and formulate recommendations for potential
cost savings or cost avoidance; and, (3) establishing a VA-wide
process to continuously solicit and collect ideas and recommendations
to improve the efficiency of IT projects, programs, and the
acquisition and allocation of equipment; and assisting project
managers in the development of VA-wide cost savings measures for
presentation to the Assistant Secretary.
[43] OMB, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies: Fiscal Year 2013 PortfolioStat Guidance: Strengthening
Federal IT Portfolio Management, M-13-09 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27,
2013).
[44] OMB, Management of Federal Information Resources, Circular A-130
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 28, 2000). According to OMB Circular A-130, an
agency's information resources management strategic plan should
describe how information resources management activities help
accomplish agency missions, and ensure that information resource
management decisions are integrated with organizational planning,
budget, procurement, financial management, human resources management,
and program decisions.
[45] OMB, Increasing Shared Approaches to Information Technology
Services (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2012). The enterprise road map is
to include a business and technology architecture, an IT asset
inventory, a commodity IT consolidation plan, a line of business
service plan, and an IT shared service plan.
[46] The integrated data collection channel will be used by agencies
to report structured information, such as progress in meeting IT
strategic goals, objectives, and metrics, as well as cost savings and
avoidances resulting from IT management actions.
[47] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-524].
[48] OMB M-11-29 states that CIOs must be empowered by the agency head
to have authority over IT governance, commodity IT systems,
information security, and IT program management in order to drive
efficiencies.
[49] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-634].
[50] GAO, Information Technology: OMB's Dashboard Has Increased
Transparency and Oversight, but Improvements Needed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701] (Washington, D.C.: July 2010).
[51] We did not make any recommendations to the Department of
Education.
[52] OMB M-13-09.
[53] OMB, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies: Implementing PortfolioStat, M-12-10 (Mar. 30, 2012).
[54] These agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland
Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor,
State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the
Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Archives and
Records Administration, National Science Foundation, Office of
Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, Social Security
Administration, U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
[55] OMB, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies: Fiscal Year 2013 PortfolioStat Guidance: Strengthening
Federal IT Portfolio Management, M-13-09 (Mar. 27, 2013).
[End of section]
GAO’s Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the
performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations,
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy,
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports,
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select
“E-mail Updates.”
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
Connect with GAO:
Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm];
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov;
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470.
Congressional Relations:
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, DC 20548.
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548.
[End of document]